iM.E.HARMSTEAD'Sq 

g  CHEAP  BOOKSTORE,  g 
P  Temperance  Repository,  g 
g   No.  46  N.  5lh  St.    g 

^2 doors  below  Arch.  Phila.% 


LIBRARY 


?aa(!)[L(!)Q[isaa.  ssEanaas?, 


rRlXCETO]*,  ]%.  J. 


l>nN'A'l'10X    0> 

S  A  M  IJ  K  1 .    A  CI  N  K  W  , 

f^      jL  "  ^'     >'  H  1  1.  A  UK  I.  P  H  1  A  .    PA. 

LHter       O'JL: 3 


I)         Case,   Division. _i 


Shelf.  Sectld.n   /\^ ®|^ 


/, 
/ 


/ 


THE 

BELIEVER'S    DEFENCE, 

OR,  THE  DOCTRINE  OF 
THE  TRINITY  OF  GOD 

AND  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST 
DEFENDED  AGAINST  UNITARIANISM, 

COMPILED  FROM  VARIOUS  AUTHORS. 


BY  ALBERT  McWRIGHT,  ^ 

Minister  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 


"There  are  three  that  bear  record  in  Heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word, 
end  the  Holy  Ghost:  and  these  three  are  one." — 1  John  v.  7. 


COLUMBUS,  OHIO. 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE  AUTHOR. 
C.  Scott,  Printer. 

184L 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1841. 

By  Albert  McWright, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Ohio. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  compiler  of  the  following  pages  probably  would  never 
have  stepped  out  of  his  beloved  obscurity  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
fending one  of  the  most  important  doctrines  in  Christian  theolo- 
gy, had  not  a  train  of  circumstances  compelled  him  to  enter  the 
field  of  controversy,  or  abandon  what  he  deemed  to  be  funda- 
mental truth  in  our  holy  religion,  to  the  reckless  assaults  of  its 
enemies,  who,  having  grown.bold  through  neglect,  challenged 
him  to  public  combat  under  circumstances  which  left  him  but  one 
alternative,  either  to  give  up  the  truth  as  indefensible,  or  "  con- 
tend earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  Under 
these  circumstances,  the  design  of  publishing  the  present  work 
was  conceived. 

Th?  compiler  makes  no  pretensions  to  originality.  Various 
authors  have  been  consulted,  and  in  most  cases  the  language  of 
otlier  wi-iters  has  been  adopted.  Alterations  having  been  made 
only  when  it  was  thought  such  alterations  would  increase  the 
force  or  clearness  of  the  argument. 

The  authors  that  have  been  consulted  are  Wesley,  Fletcher, 
Clark,  Abbadie,  Drew,  Hare,  Luckey,  Lee,  and  various  others. 
The  most  copious  extracts,  however,  have  been  made  from  the 
writings  of  the  Rev.  Richard  Watson,  whose  works  are  worthy 
the  attention  of  all  who  are  seeking  after  the  truth  as  it  is  m 
Jesus. 

It  is  well  known  that  Unitarians,  in  consequence  of  the  diver- 
sity of  opinions  existing  among  them  on  subjects  of  minor  im- 
portance, are  divided  into  various  sects,  among  whom  are  to  be 
found  a  class  of  people  calling  themselves  Christians,  but  com- 
monly known  by  the  name  of  New-Lights.  Against  tliese  the 
following  work  is  more  particularly  directed,  but  not  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  rest,  the  author  having  endeavored  so  to  manage  the 
argument  that  all  classes  of  Unitarians  are  opposed  by  the  same 
proofs. 


IV  INTRODUCTION. 

Some  may  suppose  that  enough  has  been  written  on  this  sub- 
ject, and  that  there  is  no  call  for  a  work  of  this  description  at  the 
present  time.  This  has  been  considered  by  the  author,  and  after 
a  due  examination  of  the  principal  works  on  this  important  sub- 
ject, he  has  come  to  the  conclusion  to  add  one  more  to  the  number, 
for  which  he  offers  the  following  reasons : 

1.  "  The  works  which  have  already  been  published  have  not  yet 
fully  put  a  stop  to  the  errors  against  which  they  have  been  direct- 
ed, nor  do  tliey  appear  likely  to  accomplish  this  object,  very  sea- 
sonably, without  additional  aid.  While  others  have  commenced 
tlie  assault  and  battered  down  some  of  the  bulwarks  of  error,  the 
writer  of  these  pages  wishes  to  add  his  humble  efforts,  hoping  that 
otliers  will  follow  his  example,  until  her  strongest  holds  shall  be 
demolished,  and  the  heresy  shall  be  known  only  in  the  history  of 
the  past" 

2.  Unitarianism  "  has  so  shifted  its  ground  and  changed  its  com- 
plexion, that  many  of  the  works  which,  at  the  time  they  were  writ- 
ten, were  directed  against  it  with  a  deadly  aim,  are  now  left  to 
spend  their  strength  in  the  air,  the  enemy  having  fled  and  erected 
his  battery  on  other  ground,  from  whence  he  renews  his  incendia- 
ry warfare,  and  talks  as  much  of  courage  and  victory  as  though 
he  had  never  been  defeated." 

3.  Most  of  the  works  which  have  been  published  on  the  sub- 
ject, are  too  voluminous  to  admit  of  a  general  circulation,  or  to  be 
read  by  a  large  portion  of  the  public.  The  compiler  of  this 
work  has,  therefore,  looked  upon  it  as  an  object  of  no  small  im- 
portance, to  put  into  the  hands  of  the  public,  in  one  convenient 
volume,  a  refutation  of  Unitarianism  in  all  the  various  forms 
which  it  assumes,  as  it  is  driven  from  one  position  to  another. 

In  conclusion,  whatever  may  be  the  fate  assigned  to  these  pa- 
ges by  the  impartial  judgment  of  the  public,  the  compiler  can  ap- 
peal to  liis  Divine  Redeemer,  the  adorable  Immanuel,  to  whom 
he  now  dedicates  this  work,  for  the  rectitude  of  his  motives ;  to 
whom,  also,  he  directs  his  most  fervent  prayers,  that  both  writer 
and  reader  may  be  guided  into  all  truth. 

Bloomfield,  August  1,  1841. 


BELIEVER'S  DEFENCE, 


CHAPTER  I. 

ON    THE    IMPROPRIETY  OF    MAKING   HUMAN  REASON  THE 
TEST  OF  THE   DOCTRINES   OF   DIVINE   REVELATION. 

It  is  one  of  the  disadvantages  to  be  encountered  in 
this  work,  that  while  the  evangeUcal  party  take  only  the 
Scriptures  for  their  guide,  Unitarians  claim  it  as  a  privi- 
lege to  appeal  from  the  sacred  writers  to  the  dictates  of 
unassisted  reason.  The  latter  will  submit  their  opinions 
to  the  test  of  Scripture,  only  when  the  Scriptures  will 
stand  the  ordeal  of  their  opinions.  Or,  to  speak  with 
greater  propriety,  they  choose  to  try  rather  the  Scrip* 
tures  by  their  creed,  than  their  creed  by  the  Scriptures. 
When  the  language  of  the  evangelists  and  apostles  ap* 
pears  to  favor  their  hypothesis,  they  are  prepared  to  make 
the  utmost  use  of  its  authority  ;  but  when  the  contrary 
is  the  case,  and  the  plainest  declarations  of  the  sacred 
writers  cannot  be  transformed  into  metaphor,  allegory, 
or  figurative  representation  ;  when  the  primitive  teach^ 
ers  of  Christianity  obstinately  refuse  to  become  Unitari- 
ans, or  even  to  be  neutral,  our  opponents  are  prepared 
to  pronounce  against  them  a  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion, and  to  erase  their  testimony  from  the  record,  as  an 
interpolation,  a  corruption  of  the  sacred  text,  or  an  in- 
conclusive argument. 

That  this  is  the  course  pursued  by  Unitarians,  the  fol- 
lowing extracts  from  some  of  their  principal  writers, 
will  abundantly  show : 

Socinins,  the  founder  of  Socinianism,  while  speaking 
on  the  doctrine  of  Atonement,  says  : — -"  Though  it  were 
found  not  only  once,  but  frequently,  written  in  the  Holy 
1* 


6  REASON    NOT    TJIE    TEST    OF    THE 

Scriptures,  I  indeed  would  not  believe  it  to  be  entirely  as 
you  suppose.  Though  the  divine  oracles  may  attest 
things  to  be  so.  in  appearance,  yet  they  cannot  by  any 
means  be  admitted,  because  they  are  very  evidently  im- 
possible." 

Smalcius,  another  Unitarian,  says: — "We  believe 
that  though  we  should  find  it  not  once,  nor  twice,  but 
very  frequently,  and  most  expressly  written  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  God  was  made  man,  it  would  be  much  better, 
as  it  is  an  absurd  proposition,  entirely  contrary  to  sound 
reason  and  full  of  blasphemy,  to  invent  some  other  way 
of  speaking  which  might  render  it  safe  to  be  affirmed  of 
God,  rather  than  understand  it  in  the  literal  sense."  ^ 

Dr.  Priestly,  a  very  celebrated  Unitarian,  says,  in  the 
Theological  Repository  : — "  I  think  I  have  shown  that 
the  Apostle  Paul  often  reasons  inconclusively,  and  there- 
fore that  he  wrote  as  any  other  person  of  his  turn  of 
mind  or  thinking,  and  in  his  situation,  would  have  writ- 
ten without  any  particular  inspiration." 

Mr.  Belsham,  of  the  same  school,  says  : — •'  That 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  a  man  constituted  in  all  respects 
like  other  men,  subject  to  the  same  infirmities,  the  same 
ignorance,  prejudices  and  frailties." 

Mr.  Theodore  Parke,  in  an  Ordination  Sermon,  re- 
cently preached  in  Boston,  after  speaking  of  what  he 
calls  the  difficulties  of  the  Bible,  says  : — 

"  Hence  the  attempt  which  always  fails,  to  reconcile 
the  philosophy  of  our  times  with  the  poems  in  Genesis, 
written  a  thousand  years  before  Christ ;  hence  the  at- 
tempt to  conceal  the  contradictions  in  the  record  itself. 
Matters  have  come  to  such  a  pass  that  even  now,  he  is 
deemed  an  infidel,  if  not  by  implication  an  atheist, 
whose  reverence  for  the  Most  High  forbids  him  to  be- 
lieve that  God  commanded  Abraham  to  sacrifice  his 
son,  a  thought  at  which  the  flesh  creeps  with  horror; 
to  believe  it  solely  on  the  authority  of  an  oriental  story, 
written  down  nobody  knows  when,  or  by  whom,  or  for 
what  purpose :  which  may  be  a  poem,  but  cannot  be 


DOCTRINES    OF    REVELATION.  7 

the  record  of  a  fact  unless  God  is  the  author  of  confu- 
sion and  a  He." — pp.  20,  21. 

''  On  the  authority  of  the  written  word,  man  was 
taught  to  beheve  fiction  for  fact ;  a  dream  for  a  miracu- 
lous revelation  of  God ;  an  oriental  poem  for  a  grave 
history  of  miraculous  events  ;  a  collection  of  amatory 
idyls  for  a  serious  discourse  '  touching  the  mutual  love 
of  Christ  and  the  Church  ;  they  have  been  taught  to 
accept  a  picture  sketched  by  some  glowing  eastern  im- 
agination, never  intended  to  be  taken  for  a  reality,  as  a 
proof  that  the  infinite  God  spoke  in  human  words  ;  ap- 
peared in  the  shape  of  a  cloud,  a  flaming  bush,  or  a 
man  who  ate  and  drank  and  vanished  into  smoke  ;  that 
he  gave  counsels  to-day,  and  the  opposite  to-morrow ; 
that  he  violated  his  own  laws,  was  angry,  and  was  only 
dissuaded  by  a  mortal  man  from  destroying  at  once  a 
whole  nation — millions  of  men  who  rebelled  against  their 
leader  in  a  moment  of  anguish." — pp.  19,.  20. 

"  The  history  of  opinions  on  the  New  Testament  is 
quite  similar.  It  has  been  assumed  at  the  outset,  it 
would  seem,  with  no  sufficient  reason,  without  the  smal- 
lest pretence  on  its  writers'  parts,  that  all  of  its  authors 
were  infallibly  and  miraculously  inspired,  so  that  they 
could  commit  no  error  of  doctrine  or  fact.  Men  have 
been  bid  to  close  their  eyes  at  the  obvious  difference  be- 
tween Luke  and  John  ;  the  serious  disagreement  be- 
tween Paul  and  Peter ;  to  believe  on  the  smallest  evi- 
dence, accounts  which  shock  the  moral  sense  and  revolt 
the  reason,  and  tend  to  place  Jesus  in  the  same  series 
with  Hercules  and  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  accounts  which 
Paul  in  the  Epistles  never  mentions,  though  he  also  had 
a  vein  of  the  miraculous  running  quite  through  him." 
—p.  22. 

"  Who  shall  assure  us  that  they  [the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament]  were  not  sometimes  mistaken  in  his- 
torical, as  well  as  doctrinal  matters,  did  not  sometimes 
c;onfound  the  actual  with  the  imaginary,  and  that  the  fan:  • 


8  REASON    NOT    THE    TEST    OF    TH£ 

cy  of  these  pious  writers  never  stood  in  the  place  of" 
their  recollection."— pp.  27,  28. 

''  No  doubt  the  time  will  come  when  its  true  charac- 
ter will  be  felt.  Then  it  will  be  seen,  that,  amid  all  the 
contradictions  of  the  Old  Testament ;  its  legends  so 
beautiful  as  fictions,  so  appalling  as  facts  ;  amid  its  pre- 
dictions that  have  never  been  fulfilled  ;  amid  the  puerile 
conceptions  of  God  which  sometimes  occur,  and  the 
cmel  denunciations  that  disfigure  both  Psalm  and  Pro- 
phecy, there  is  a  reverence  for  man's  nature,  a  sublime 
trust  in  God,  and  a  depth  of  piety  rarely  felt  in  these 
cold  northern  hearts  of  ours." — p.  30. 

It  may  be  pleaded  in  favor  of  Unitarianism  that  the 
opinions  of  Mr.  Parker  are  not  generally  held  by  its  ad- 
herents. This  we  hope  is  really  the  case  ;  but  what  are 
we  to  make  of  the  following  notice  of  Mr.  Parker,  which 
recently  appeared  in  the  Unitarian  Christian  Register, 
the  great  organ  of  the  Unitarians  in  Boston  : 

"  We  doubt  not  that  the  author  is  eminently  a  Chris^ 
tian  in  life;  and  we  have  not  said,  nor  dare  we  say,  that 
he  is  otherwise  than  a  Christian  in  belief." 

Mr.  Grundy,  another  late  author,  says  :— '*  To  what 
end  was  reason  given  ?  Precisely,  that  it  may  be  the 
rule  of  life  ;  the  helm  by  which  we  must  steer  our  course 
across  the  tempestuous  billows  of  mortality  ;  the  touch- 
stone of  every  doctrine ;  the  supreme  umpire  in  every 
difficulty  and  doubt." 

Mr.  Millard,  of  that  class  of  Unitaiians  who  claim  to 
be  called  Christians,  talks  of  bringing  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  to  the  test  of  reason,  (see  his  work  called 
the  True  Messiah,  p.  23,)  while  it  is  well  known  that 
all  classes  of  Unitarians  call  in  question  the  translation 
of  every  passage  of  Scripture  that  stands  opposed  to 
their  views. 

These  quotations  clearly  show  that  Unitarians  do  ap- 
peal from  Revelation  to  the  dictates  of  human  reason  in 
matters  of  religion  ;  yea,  that  they  receive  reason  as  the 
^'  test"  and  "  touchstone  of  every  doctrine"  as  *'  the  rule 


DOCTRINES    OF    REVELATION.  » 

of  life"  and  "the  helm  by  which  we  are  to  steer  our 
course  across  the  tempestuous  billows  of  mortality." 
They  say  that  it  is  "the  supreme  umpire  in  every  difficul- 
ty and  doubt ;"  and  not  content  with  thus  exalting  rea- 
son above  Revelation,  they  proceed  to  tell  us  that  the 
Scriptures  contain  "  puerile  conceptions  of  God  ;"  that 
"  cruel  denunciations  disfigure  both  Psalm  and  Prophe- 
cy ;"  that  contradictions  are  to  be  found  between  differ- 
ent parts  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  ;  that 
Paul  reasoned  inconclusively,  and  was  not  inspired  ;  that 
the  Saviour  was  ignorant  and  prejudiced  as  other  men  ; 
tmd  finally,  boldly  affirm  that  if  the  Bible  contains  any 
thing  contrary  to  their  reason,  they  will  not  believe  it, 
but  invent  some  other  way  of  speaking. 

What  is  this  but  saying  we  are  determined  to  regulate, 
not  our  theological  sentiments  by  the  Scriptures,  but  the 
Scriptures  by  our  pre-conceived  opinions  ?  As  we  be- 
lieve that  this  course  of  our  opponents,  in  thus  placing 
reason  above  Revelation,  is  calculated  to  sow  the  seeds 
of  infidelity  in  the  minds  of  the  unwary,  we  shall,  for 
the  following  reasons,  here  enter  our  solemn  protest 
against  it : 

1.  Human  reason  has  been  corrupted  by  sin.  Were 
it  not  for  this,  we  might  have  placed  a  great  degree  of  de- 
pendence upon  it ;  yet  even  then  it  would  not  have  been 
rational,  to  rely  more  on  the  powers  of  our  own  under- 
standing, than  on  the  light  of  Divine  Revelation,  suppo- 
sing such  a  Revelation  to  have  been  enjoyed :  because 
the  knowledge  of  man,  when  his  reason  was  unimpaired, 
was  limited  ;  but  the  knowledge  of  God  is  infinite.  What 
a  disparity,  then,  must  there  be,  when  the  human  un- 
derstanding  is  not  only  limited,  but  corrupted;  when  the 
unavoidable  commerce  between  a  man's  thoughts  and 
his  depraved  passions,  fills  his  mind  with  a  multitude  of 
prejudices,  which  have  a  tendency  in  various  ways  to 
disguise,  or  conceal,  the  truth  ! — Were  we  bound  to  be- 
lieve nothing  but  what  appears  conformable  to  reason, 
in  its  present  state,  we  might  soon  reject  the  great  objects 


10  REASON    NOT    THE    TEST    OF    THE 

revealed  in  the  gospel,  in  general.  For,  after  all  the 
strenuous  efforts  of  our  adversaries,  to  remove  the  grand 
difficulties  attending  the  Christian  religion ;  there  are, 
and  there  always  will  be,  such  depths  in  it,  as  are  unfa- 
thomable by  the  plummet  of  human  reason.  On  this 
account,  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  "calls  the  gospel 
foolishness.  If  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  had  noth- 
ing mysterious  and  inexplicable  in  them,  there  would  be 
no  difficulty  in  believing ;  nor  would  faith  be  any  more 
the  gift  of  God,  than  the  persuasion  we  have  of  natural 
truths.  Consequently,  there  would  be  no  more  occa- 
sion for  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  order  to  our 
believing  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  than  there  is  to  our 
understanding  the  problems  of  geometry. 

2.  "  To  act  on  this  principle  of  our  opposers  is  to  treat 
God,  as  if  he  were  less  worthy  of  credit  than  an  honest 
man.  A  fallible  mortal,  who  has  not  forfeited  his  char- 
acter, as  a  person  of  veracity,  would  take  it  deservedly 
ill,  if,  when  speaking  of  an  extraordinary  fact,  of  which 
he  was  an  eye-witness,  he  was  to  say,  '  Take  my  word 
for  it ;  it  is  as  I  assert :'  and  we  should  reply,  '  We  must 
consider  what  you  say.  If  we  find  it  agreeable  to  our 
reason,  we  will  believe  you  ;  if  not,  we  shall  entirely  re- 
ject your  testimony.'  If,  then,  such  language  would  be 
reckoned  indecent  towards  a  fellow-wonn,  what  must 
we  think  of  a  similar  conduct,  in  regard  to  God,  who  is 
equally  incapable  of  deceiving  us,  as  he  is  of  being  de- 
ceived ? 

3.  "If  reason  were  to  be  the  rule  of  our  faith,  Reve- 
lation would  be  superseded.  For,  to  what  purpose 
should  God  make  known  the  counsel  of  his  will,  if  rea- 
son were  allowed  to  say :  '  This  is  not  the  counsel  of 
God.  It  cannot  be,  for  I  do  not  comprehend  it  ?'  Thus 
the  conscience  would  be  influenced,  not  by  Revelation, 
but  by  the  doubt  which  reason  had  raised  upon  it. — Be- 
sides, if  it  were  lawful  for  human  reason  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment on  Divine  Rev^elation,  the  darkness  introduced  on 
our  minds,  by  sin,  could  never  be  dissipated.     For  how 


DOCTRINES  OF  REVELATION.  11 

should  reason,  proud  of  her  own  pretended  abihties,  and 
resolved  to  correct  Revelation  itself,  be  enlightened  ? 
According  to  this  arrogant  and  self-sufficient  notion,  faith 
in  the  Divine  testimony  is  entirely  set  aside  ;  reason  be- 
ing resolved  on  following  her  own  light,  in  preference  to 
that  of  God  in  the  Scriptures.  So  that,  instead  of  say- 
ing, I  believe  such  a  proposition,  how  incredible  soever 
it  may  seem,  because  God  has  revealed  it ;  we  must  say, 
Though  God  has  revealed  it  in  the  most  plain  and  ex- 
press terms,  we  will  not  believe  it,  because  it  appears 
incredible  to  us. 

4.  "  Were  we  thus  to  exalt  reason,  what  is  usually 
called  Divine  faith,  would  be  much  inferior  to  that 
which  is  human  ;  because  we  should  not  pay  so  great  a 
regard  to  the  declarations  of  God,  as  to  those  of  our 
parents,  masters  and  tutors  ;  on  whose  bare  authority  we 
receive  a  great  number  of  truths,  relating  to  the  affairs 
of  common  life.  But,  in  such  a  case,  where  is  humili- 
ty, where  is  that  filial,  teachable  spirit,  which  is  one  of 
the  marks  of  our  adoption  and  regeneration  ?  What 
need  of  submitting  to  the  dictates  of  Inspiration,  be- 
cause it  is  the  Eternal  Sovereign  who  speaks  ;  when  we 
have  nothing  to  do  but  convince  ourselves  of  all  neces- 
sary truths,  by  their  own  internal  characters  ;  and  to  re- 
ject, or  embrace  them,  in  exact  proportion  as  they  agree 
or  disagree  with  the  light  of  our  own  understanding  ? 

"  '  Reason,  our  opponents  will  say,  reason  is  the 
foundation  of  faith  :  consequently,  faith  cannot  be  more 
certain  than  reason.' — Reason,  I  confess,  leads  to  Reve- 
lation :  because  we  are  taught  by  it^  that  God  is  infalli- 
bly wise,  and  that  we  are  liable  to  err  ;  that  we  cannot, 
therefore,  do  better  than  regard  the  light  of  Revela- 
tion, in  preference  to  the  uncertain  conjectures  of  our 
own  minds.  But  then,  as  reason  leads  us  to  this  infalli- 
ble rule,  which  was  given  by  uncontrollable  authority ; 
she  requires  us  to  receive,  with  submission,  whatever  the 
Great  Revealer  asserts,  as  a  fact ;  commands,  as  a  duty ; 
or  proposes,  as  an  object  of  faith." — Ahhadie. 


12  REASON    NOT    THE    TEST    OF    THE 

5.  "  However  unwilling  modern  philosophers,  who 
have  received  all  their  true  wisdom  from  the  Bible,  may 
be  to  confess  the  insufficiency  of  human  reason  in  things 
Divine,  the  sages  of  antiquity  were  honest  enough  to 
acknowledge  the  uncertainty  of  its  researches. 

"  Pythagoras  changed  the  name  of  wise  men  into 
lovers  of  wisdom,  as  believing  it  not  to  be  attained  by 
human  means.  Socrates  often  repeated,  '  that  he  knew 
but  one  thing  with  certainty,  and  that  was  his  ignorance 
of  all  things.'  Plato  frequently  reminds  his  pupils,  that 
in  religious  subjects  they  were  not  to  expect  proof,  but 
only  probability  from  them.  Aristotle  condemns  his 
predecessors  as  the  most  foolish  and  vain-glorious  per- 
sons in  the  world,  from  a  conviction  of  their  ignorance^ 
and  the  vanity  of  imagining  that  he  had  carried  philoso- 
phy to  the  utmost  perfection  it  was  capable  of;  though 
no  one  said  or  believed  less  of  Divine  things  than  he 
did.  Tully  complains,  that  we  are  blind  in  the  dis- 
cernment of  wisdom ;  that  some  unaccountable  error, 
and  miserable  ignorance  of  the  truth,  has  got  posses- 
sion of  us.  The  Stoics  pretended  to  know  all  things ; 
yet  Plutarch  says,  '  that  there  neither  had  been,  nor  was 
a  wise  man  on  the  face  of  the  earth.'  Lactantius  ob- 
serves, '  They  could  not  exceed  the  powers  of  nature, 
nor  speak  truth  on  these  (sacred)  subjects,  having  never 
learned  it  of  him  who  alone  could  instruct  them ;  nor 
ever  came  so  near  it,  as  when  they  confessed  their  igno- 
rance of  it.'  Epictetus  found  so  much  uncertainty  in 
Divine  things,  that  like  many  other  heathen  philosophers, 
he  advised  every  one  to  follow  the  custom  of  his  coun- 
try.    (Dr.  Ellis  on  the  Knowledge  of  Divine  Things.) 

"Socrates  told  Alcibiades,  'It  is  necessary  you 
should  wait  for  some  person  to  teach  you  how  you  ought 
to  behave  yourself  toward  both  the  gods  and  men.  He 
(says  he)  will  do  it  who  takes  a  true  care  of  you.  But 
methinks,  as  we  read  in  Homer,  that  as  Minerva  dissi- 
pated the  mist  that  covered  Diomedes,  and  hindered  him 
from  distinguishing  God  and  man ;  so  it  is  necessary 


DOCTRINES  OF  REVELATION,  13 

that  he  should  in  the  first  place  scatter  the  darkness  that 
covers  your  soul,  and  afterward  give  you  those  remedies 
that  are  necessary  to  put  you  in  a  condition  of  discern- 
ing good  and  evil ;  for  at  present  you  know  not  how  to 
make  a  difference.'  ( Stanley^ s  Lives.)  '  Plato  wish- 
ed for  a  prophet  to  reveal  the  will  of  God  to  us,  with- 
out which  we  cannot  know  it.'  And  Plutarch  says  the 
same,  '  that  the  knowledge  of  the  gods  can  be  had  only 
from  them.'  Thus  did  they  plainly  attribute  whatever 
they  knew  of  the  gods,  or  of  divine  things,  to  no  prin- 
ciple but  the  gods. 

"  When  Hiero,  tyrant  of  Syracuse,  asked  the  phi- 
losopher Simonides,  that  important  question,  What  is 
God?  the  prudent  philosopher  required  a  day  to  con- 
sider it,  and  doubled  his  request  whenever  he  was  called 
upon  to  give  in  his  answer.  When  Hiero  was  weary  of 
procrastination,  and  inquired  the  reason  of  his  delay  : — 
'  Because,'  said  the  philosopher,  '  the  longer  I  consider 
the  subject,  the  more  I  am  at  a  loss  for  a  reply.' 

"Such  were  the  modesty  and  diffidence  of  Simon- 
ides !  One  who  was  much  more  justly  reputed  for  wis- 
dom, exclaimed,  '  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the 
wisdom  and  of  the  knowledge  of  God  !  How  unsearch- 
able are  his  judgments,  and  his  ways  past  finding  out !' 
Rom.  xi,  33.  ^  Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out  God  ? 
canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty  to  perfection  ?  It  is 
as  high  as  heaven :  what  canst  thou  do  ?  deeper  than 
hell,  what  canst  thou  know  ?  The  measure  thereof  is 
longer  than  the  earth,  and  broader  than  the  sea.  But 
vain  man  would  be  wise,  though  man  be  born  like  a  wild 
ass's  colt.'  Job  xi,  7,  9,  12.  The  labor,  however,  has 
always  been  useless :  '  the  world  by  wisdom  knew  not 
God.'  1  Cor.  i,  21.  Among  those  who  have  not  seen 
the  dawn  of  Divine  revelation,  '  there  is  none  that  un- 
derstandeth,  that  seeketh  after  God.'  Rom.  iii,  11, 
"  For  what  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the 
spirit  of  a  man  which  is  in  him?  Even  so  the  things  of  God 
knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God.'  1  Cor.  ii,  1 1 . 
2 


14  REASON    NOT    THE    TEST    OF    THE 

''The Christian  Church  was  scarcely  formed  when 
in  different  places  there  started  up  certain  pretended  re- 
formers, who,  not  satisfied  with  the  simplicity  of  that 
religion  which  was  taught  by  the  apostles,  set  up  a  new 
religion  drawn  from  their  own  licentious  imaginations. 
Several  of  these  are  mentioned  by  the  apostles,  such  as 
Hymenaeus  and  Alexander.  The  influence  of  these 
new  teachers  was  but  inconsiderable  at  first.  During  the 
lives  of  the  apostles  their  attempts  toward  the  perver- 
sion of  Christianity  were  attended  with  little  success. 
They  however  acquired  credit  and  strength  by  degrees  ; 
and  even  from  the  first  dawn  of  the  Gospel  laid  imper- 
ceptibly the  foundation  of  those  sects  which  produced 
afterward  such  trouble  in  the  Christian  Church. 

"  '  Among  the  various  sects  that  troubled  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  the  leading  one  was  that  of  the  Gnostics. 
These  self-sufficient  philosophers  boasted  of  their  being 
able  to  restore  mankind  to  the  knowledge  (gnosis)  of  the 
supreme  Being,  which  had  been  lost  in  the  world.  Un- 
der the  general  appellation  of  Gnostics  are  comprehend- 
ed all  those  who,  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  cor- 
rupted the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  by  a  profane  mixture 
of  the  tenets  of  the  oriental  philosophy,  with  its  Divine 
truths.'  (Mosheim,  book  i,  part  ii,  chap,  v.)  From 
these  '  knowing  ones'  arose,  in  the  first  and  second  cen- 
tury, a  rich  harvest  of  heretics  and  heresies,  of  which, 
not  to  mention  them  in  detail,  the  reader  may  find  an 
ample  account  in  the  first  volume  of  Mosheim's  Eccle- 
siastical History.  A  few  specimens  would  show  that 
the  apostles  acted  wisely  when  they  cautioned  their  dis- 
ciples against  every  thing  destructive  to  the  simplicity  of 
the  Gospel,  and  that  they  were  not  mistaken  in  the  re- 
sults of  this  unnatural  coalition  of  philosophy  and  reve- 
lation, which  they  predicted.  '  There  is  no  observation 
capable  of  fuller  proof,  than  that  religion,  through  all 
ages  of  the  Christian  Church,  was  more  or  less  pure  ac- 
cording to  the  alloy  of  philosophy  or  human  reason  mixed 
up  with  it.     There  was  scarcely  a  heresy  in  the  primi- 


DOCTRINES  OF  REVELATION.  15 

live  Church  that  was  not  imbibed  from  Plato's  academy, 
Zeno's  portico,  or  some  vain  reasonings  of  the  pagan 
wise  men.  In  latter  ages  the  schoolmen  rejected  Plato, 
and  exalted  Aristotle  into  the  chair  of  Christ,  says  Tile- 
nus,  (Til.  Syntagm.,  part  ii,  disp.  16,  thes.  31,)  esteem- 
ing him  the  god  of  wisdom  who  could  not  err.  And 
the  controversy  long  subsisted  to  which  of  them  an  ap- 
peal lay  for  the  determination  of  truth.  Such  is  the  vain 
arrogance  of  human  reason,  as  to  have  puffed  up  some 
in  every  age  to  promise  they  would  show  us  the  truth 
by  the  mere  light  of  it,  and  maintain  it  as  the  only  rule 
of  faith.  '  Philosophy  and  vain  deceit'  have  always 
proved  highly  injurious  to  the  purity  of  religion,  and  the 
great  objects  of  faith  which  are  supernaturally  reveal- 
ed.'    (i)r.  Ellis.) 

"  Since  philosophy  has  fallen  into  the  hands  of  sin- 
cere and  devout  Christians,  who  valued  above  all  learn- 
ino;  "  the  faith  delivered  to  the  saints,"  and  "  contend- 
ed"  for  that  faith  as  the  truest  wisdom,  it  has  been  much 
reformed.  But  so  long  as  it  is  human  wisdom,  it  will 
never  be  fit  to  take  the  lead  of  revelation.  Modern 
philosophers,  as  well  as  those  of  antiquity,  whenever 
they  attempt  to  model  their  creed  by  the  rule  of  their 
reason,  show  themselves  capable  of  the  greatest  ab- 
surdities. With  our  Unitarian  divines,  (as  they  are 
pleased  exclusively  to  denominate  themselves,)  it  is  a 
first  principle  that  "  reason  directs  to  whatever  is  true 
in  speculation."  To  set  reason  free  from  the  fetters  of 
education,  they  have  renounced  the  doctrine  of  human 
depravity,  and  of  eternal  punishment.  Thus  inspired 
with  unlimited  confidence  in  their  own  understanding, 
and  divested  of  all  apprehension  of  eternal  consequen- 
ces, they  are  ^  induced  to  reason  cautiously  and  fre- 
quently, and  learn  to  reason  well.'  So  says  one  of 
themselves.*  And  what  can  be  more  reasonably  ex- 
pected from  them  than  that  they  should  all  reason  alike  ? 

*  Mr.  James  Yates,  in  a  sermon  on  the  grounds  of  Unitarian  dissent, 
preached  at  Glasgow,  pp.  IG,  17,  22,  23. 


16  REASON    NOT    THE    TEST    OF    THE 

But  their  one,  perfect,  infallible,  and  unchangeable 
guide,  which  '  directs  to  whatever  is  true  in  specula- 
tion,' is  far  from  leading  them  all  in  the  same  path.  A 
few  lines  from  the  author  just  mentioned  will  amply 
illustrate  their  agreements  and  their  differences. 

^"  In  order  to  convey  a  just  idea  of  the  constitution 
of  Unitarian  societies,  it  is  necessary  to  premise,  that, 
while  we  are  united  by  a  few  great  principles,  there  are 
numerous  topics  of  inferior  consequence  respecting  which 
we  differ  in  opinion  among  ourselves.  All  Unitarians 
agree  in  denying  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  eternal  God  ; 
and  that  he  is  the  object  of  religious  worship.  Some 
of  them,  however,  believe  that  he  was  employed,  as  an 
instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  Deity,  to  create  the  ma- 
terial world,  though  not  possessed  of  underived  wisdom 
and  independent  power :  others  believe  only  in  his  pre- 
existence.  Some  go  still  farther,  maintaining  that  he 
was  simply  a  human  being,  but  conceived  in  the  womb 
of  the  virgin  according  to  the  introductory  chapters  of 
Matthew  and  Luke's  Gospels  :  others  see  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  those  chapters  are  interpolations,  and  therefore 
deny  the  doctrine  of  the  miraculous  conception.  In 
like  manner  all  Unitarians  agree,  that  the  death  of  Christ 
was  an  incalculable  blessing  to  mankind :  some,  how- 
ever, do  not  presume  to  determine  the  exact  manner  in 
which  it  conduces  to  the  good  of  men,  while  others 
think  that  the  mode  of  its  beneficial  operation  may  be 
distinctly  pointed  out ;  but  all  reject  the  Trinitarian 
doctrines  of  satisfaction  and  vicarious  atonement,  be- 
lievintr,  not  that  Jesus  saves  his  followers  from  the  ev- 
erlasting  misery  to  which  they  are  supposed  to  have 
been  doomed  in  consequence  ol^  the  sin  of  their  first  pa- 
rents, but  that  he  saves  them,  by  the  force  of  his  doc- 
trines, precepts,  and  example,  from  vice,  ignorance,  and 
superstition,  and  from  the  misery  which  is  their  natural 
result.  The  ordinance  of  baptism  is  a  subject  on  which 
we  entertain  various  opinions  ;  some  of  us  practise  the 
baptism  of  infants,  others  of  adults,  and  some  think  tliat 


DOCTRINES  OF  REVELATION.  17 

the  use  of  water  may  be  omitted  entirely.  Concerning 
the  question  of  an  intermediate  state,  and  the  philoso- 
phical doctrines  of  materialism  and  necessity,  we  either 
remain  in  doubt  or  espouse  opposite  sides.  On  these 
and  other  points,  which  have  been  debated  by  orthodox 
Christians  with  rancorous  animosity,  we  agree  to  differ.' 
(Mr.  Yates'  Sermon,  pp.  13 — 15.) 

Mr.  Yates  ought  to  have  the  thanks  of  the  Christian 
world  for  speaking  the  truth.  This  curious  passage 
shows  that  reason,  as  well  as  nature,  has  her  frolics. 
The  '  few  great  principles'  in  which  the  Unitarians  agree, 
Mr.  Y.  has  carefully  laid  down  ;  viz.  1.  '  The  free  and 
unbiassed  use  of  the  understanding  on  religious  subjects.' 
2.  '  They  ought  to  offer  prayer  and  adoration  to  God, 
the  Father,  only.'  3.  '  They  regard  holiness  of  heart, 
and  excellence  of  conduct,  as  the  only  means  of  obtain- 
ing salvation.' 

"  These  three  great  Unitarian  principles  will  not  pre- 
vent the  effect  of  our  observations  on  the  passage  which 
we  have  cited. 

"•  There  is  one  part  of  this  exposition  of  Unitarian- 
ism  on  which  we  may  properly  enough  remark  before 
we  enter  into  the  heart  of  it.  Mr.  Y.  has  shown  that 
his  friends  are  not  yet  agreed  on  '  the  philosophical  doc- 
trines of  materialism  and  necessity.'  But  ought  they 
not  to  know  from  whence  they  take  their  departure, 
when  they  set  out  on  their  voyage  of  discovery  ?  When 
Thales,  while  contemplating  the  stars,  fell  into  a  ditch, 
how,  said  a  woman,  should  you  know  what  passes  in 
the  heavens  when  you  see  not  what  is  just  at  your  feet  ? 
Again :  ought  they  not  to  determine  whether  or  not 
there  is  a  spirit  in  them,  before  they  assure  themselves 
that  they  can  without  assistance  from  above  find  out 
God,  who  is  a  Spirit  ?  An  apostle  thought  that  none 
but  the  spirit  of  a  man  can  know  what  is  in  man.  But 
they  think  that,  without  a  spirit,  they  can  know  the 
things  of  God.  If  all  the  phenomena  of  perception, 
reason,  memory,  will,  and  various  affections,  joined  with 
2* 


18  REASON    NOT    THE    TESf    Of    I'HE 

the  unequivocal  and  uniform  testimony  of  Divine  reve- 
lation, cannot  assure  a  Unitarian  that  he  has  a  spirit 
distinct  from  his  body,  how  can  his  reason  prove  to  it- 
self that  there  is  a  God  who  is  a  Spirit  ?  Where  then 
is  the  reason,  which  is  '  a  partial  revelation  of  God,  his 
nature,  attributes,  and  will  ?'  If  a  man's  reason  be  not 
satisfied  on  this  point,  how  can  he  on  Unitarian  princi- 
ples believe  the  testimony  of  a  revelation  which  contra- 
dicts his  reason  ?  Or,  if  a  contradiction  be  not  admh- 
ted,  how  can  his  reason  be  a  fit  rule  by  which  to  judge 
whether  that  doctrine  of  revelation  be  true.  This  one 
concession  is  subversive  of  the  whole  fabric  of  Unitari- 
anisni,  which  is  like  a  kingdom  divided  against  itself. 
Once  more :  ought  they  not  to  be  assured  that  their 
(what  name  should  it  have?)  spirit  is  free,  has  liberty, 
and  is  not  bound  down  by  the  chains  of  irresistible  ne- 
cessity, before  they  assure  themselves  that  they  are  en- 
tering on  a  free  inquiry  ? 

"  Leaving  them  to  consider  how  far  it  is  proper  to  be- 
gin their  reasonings  where  they  now  end  them,  let  us 
examine  the  points  in  which  they  agree,  and  those  in 
which  they  differ. 

1.  "Their  agreement  is  all  in  negatives.  They  are 
only  agreed  about  what  is  not.  They  agree  in  deny- 
ing that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  eternal  God,  or  the  object 
of  religious  worship  ;  and  in  rejecting  the  doctrines  of 
satisfaction  and  vicarious  atonement,  as  well  as  the  doc* 
trine  of  original  sin  and  everlasting  punishment.  That 
is,  they  agree  in  renouncing  these  doctrines  of  the 
Bible. 

2.  '•  But  in  things  positive,  though  led  by  the  same 
infallible  guide,  '  which  directs  to  whatever  is  true  in 
speculation,'  they  agree  not  at  all.  They  are  not  agreed 
whether  Jesus  Christ  was  the  '  instrumental'  Creator  of 
the  world,  or  a  mere  man.  They  are  not  agreed  in 
what  manner  the  world  is  benefitted  by  the  death  of 
Christ.  They  are  not  agreed  whether  baptism,  (i.  e. 
washing,)  should  be  administered  with  or  without  wa- 


DOCTRINES    OF    REVFLATIOT?^  19 

ter  !  Risum  tencatis  7  They  are  not  agreed  whether 
they  have  an  immortal  soul ;  or  whether  they  have  any 
soul  at  all ;  whether  they  are  walking  in  glorious  liber- 
ty, or  are  bound  in  the  adamantine  chains  of  inexorable 
necessity  !  Such  are  the  consistencies  of  all-searching, 
all-discerning,  all-knowing  reason  !  When  men,  in- 
stead of  ascending  to  heaven  on  a  ladder  let  down  from 
above,  agree  to  build  a  tower  of  which  the  foundation 
shall  be  on  earth,  and  the  summit  shall  reach  the  skies, 
no  wonder  that  God  confounds  their  language  ! 

"'  To  bring  to  light  this  disagreement  among  them- 
selves, was  the  design  with  which  Mr.  Yates  was  cited. 
The  citation  is  intended  to  show,  first, — that  as  the  hea- 
then philosophers,  without  the  aid  of  revelation,  could 
discover  and  detect  error,  but  could  not  find  out  truth, 
or  agree  among  themselves  on  that  great  question,  What 
is  truth  ?  and  therefore  could  never  enlighten  the  world 
by  their  instructions  ;  so,  when  philosophical  divines 
bring  the  doctrines  of  revelation  to  the  test  of  human 
reason,  and  make  their  own  conceptions  the  rule  by 
which  they  are  to  judge,  they  can  easily  agree  to  discard 
many  points  of  doctrine  which  in  their  own  opinion 
ought  not  to  be  taught,  because  they  are  false,  but  have 
among  themselves  no  positive  revealed  tmth  on  which 
they  are  agreed,  and  therefore  are  as  unfit  to  instruct 
mankind  as  their  elder  brethren  :  and  secondly — that  as 
by  the  philosophy  which  some  of  the  first  Christian 
teachers  adopted,  Christianity  was  neutralized  ;  so  by 
the  negative  and  skeptical  philosophy  of  modern  teach- 
ers, Chiistianity  is  destroyed." — Hare. 

"  '  In  whatever  point  of  view,'  says  an  able  author, 
^  the  subject  be  placed,  the  same  arguments  which  show 
the  incapability  of  man,  by  the  light  of  nature,  to  dis- 
cover religious  truth,  will  serve  likewise  to  show,  that, 
when  it  is  revealed  to  him,  he  is  not  warranted  in  judg- 
ing  of  it  merely  by  the  notions  which  he  had  previous- 
ly formed.  For  is  it  not  a  solecism  to  affirni,  that  man's 
natural  reason  is  a  fit  standard  for  measurini!:  the  wis- 


20  REASON    NOT    THE    TEST    OF    THE 

dom  or  truth  of  those  things  with  which  it  is  wholly 
unacquainted,  except  so  far  as  thej  have  been  super- 
naturally  revealed  ?' 

'  But  what,  then,'  (an  objector  will  say,)  '  is  the  pro- 
vince of  reason  ?  Is  it  altogether  useless  ?  Or  are  we 
to  be  precluded  from  using  it  in  this  most  important  of 
all  concerns,  for  our  security  against  error  ?' 

'•  Our  answer  is,  that  we  do  not  lessen  either  the 
utility  or  the  dignity  of  human  reason,  by  thus  confining 
the  exercise  of  it  within  those  natural  boundaries  which 
the  Creator  himself  hath  assigned  to  it.  We  admit, 
with  the  Deist,  that  '  Reason  is  the  foundation  of  all 
certitude  :'  and  we  admit,  therefore,  that  it  is  fully  com- 
petent to  judge  of  the  credibility  of  any  thing  which  is 
proposed  to  it  as  a  Divine  revelation.  But  we  deny 
that  it  has  a  right  to  dispute  (because  we  maintain  that 
it  has  not  the  ability  to  disprove)  the  vnsdom  or  the 
truth  of  those  things  which  revelation  proposes  to  its 
acceptance.  Reason  is  to  judge  whether  those  things 
be  indeed  so  revealed :  and  this  judgment  it  is  to  form, 
from  the  evidence  to  that  effect.  In  this  respect  it  is 
'  the  foundation  of  certitude,'  because  it  enables  us  to 
ascertain  the  fact,  that  God  hath  spoken  to  us.  But 
this  fact  once  established,  the  credibility,  nay,  the  cer- 
tainty of  the  things  revealed,  follows  as  of  necessary 
consequence  ;  since  no  deduction  of  reason  can  be  more 
indubitable  than  this,  that  whatever  God  reveals  must 
be  true.  Here,  then,  the  authority  of  reason  ceases. 
Its  judgment  is  finally  determined  by  the  fact  of  the 
revelation  itself:  and  it  has  thenceforth  nothing  to  do, 
but  to  believe  and  to  obey. 

"  '  But  are  we  to  believe  every  doctrine,  however  in- 
comprehensible, however  mysterious,  nay,  however 
seemingly  contradictory  to  sense  and  reason  ?' 

^'  We  answer,  that  revelation  is  supposed  to  treat  of 
subjects  with  which  man's  natural  reason  is  not  conver- 
sant. It  is  therefore  to  be  expected,  that  it  should 
communicate  some  truths  not  to  be  ftdly  comprehended 


DOCTRINES    OF    REVELATION.  21 

by  human  understandings.  But  these  we  may  safely 
receive,  upon  the  authority  which  declares  them,  with- 
out danirer  of  violatinii;  truth.  Real  and  evident  con- 
tradictions,  no  man  can,  indeed,  believe,  whose  intellects 
are  sound  and  clear.  But  such  contradictions  are  no 
more  proposed  for  our  belief,  than  impossibilities  are  en- 
joined for  our  practice :  though  things  difficult  to  un- 
derstand, as  well  as  things  hard  to  perform,  may  per- 
haps be  required  of  us,  for  the  trial  of  our  faith  and  re- 
solution. Seeming  contradictions  may  also  occur  :  but 
tliese  may  seem  to  be  such  because  they  are  slightly  or 
superficially  considered,  or  because  they  are  judged  of 
by  principles  inapplicable  to  the  subject,  and  without 
so  clear  a  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  the  things  re- 
vealed, as  may  lead  us  to  form  an  adequate  conception 
of  them.  These,  however,  afford  no  solid  argument 
against  the  truth  of  what  is  proposed  to  our  belief: 
since,  unless  we  had  really  sucti  an  insight  into  the  mys- 
terious parts  of  revelation  as  might  enable  us  to  prove 
them  to  be  contradictory  and  false,  we  have  no  good 
ground  for  rejecting  them  ;  and  we  only  betray  our  own 
ignorance  and  perverseness  in  refusing  to  take  God's 
word  for  the  truth  of  things  which  pass  man's  under- 
standing. 

"  The  simple  question,  indeed,  to  be  considered,  is, 
whether  it  be  reasonable  to  believe,  upon  competent 
authority,  things  which  we  can  neither  discover  our- 
selves, nor,  when  discovered,  fully  and  clearly  compre- 
hend ?  Now  every  person  of  common  observation  must 
be  aware,  that  unless  he  be  content  to  receive  solely 
upon  the  testimony  of  others  a  great  variety  of  informa- 
tion, much  of  which  he  may  be  wholly  unable  to  ac- 
count for  or  explain,  he  could  scarcely  obtain  a  compe- 
tency of  knowledge  to  carry  him  safely  through  the 
common  concerns  of  life.  And  with  respect  to  scien- 
tific tmths,  the  greatest  masters  in  philosophy  know  full 
well  that  many  things  are  reasonably  to  be  believed,  nay, 
must  be  believed  on  sure  and  certain  grounds  of  con- 


22  IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

viction,  though  they  are  absolutely  incomprehensible  by 
our  understandings,  and  even  so  difficult  to  be  reconcil- 
ed with  other  truths  of  equal  certainty,  as  to  carry  the 
appearance  of  being  contradictory  and  impossible.  This 
will  serve  to  show,  that  it  is  not  contrary  to  reason  to 
believe,  on  sufficient  authority,  some  things  which  can- 
not be  comprehended,  and  some  things  which,  from  the 
narrow  and  circumscribed  views  we  are  able  to  take  of 
them,  appear  to  be  repugnant  to  our  notions  of  truth. 
The  ground  on  which  we  believe  such  things,  is  the 
strength  and  certainty  of  the  evidence  with  which  they 
are  accompanied.  And  this  is  precisely  the  ground  on 
which  we  are  required  to  believe  the  truths  of  revealed 
religion.  The  evidence  that  they  come  from  God,  is,  to 
reason  itself,  as  incontrovertible  a  proof  that  they  are 
true,  as  in  matters  of  human  science  would  be  the  evi- 
dence of  sense,  or  of  mathematical  demonstration." — 
TVatson, 


CHAPTER  II. 

ON    THE    IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE 
TRINITY. 

"  Before  we  enter  upon  the  examination  of  the  scrip- 
tural proofs  of  the  Trinity,  it  will  be  necessary  to  im- 
press the  reader  with  a  sense  of  the  importance'  of  this 
revealed  doctrine  ;  and  the  more  so  as  it  has  been  a  part 
of  the  subtle  warfare  of  the  enemies  of  this  fundamen- 
tal branch  of  the  common  faith,  to  represent  it  as  of 
little  consequence,  or  as  a  matter  of  useless  speculation. 
Thus,  Dr.  Priestley,  '  All  that  can  be  said  for  it  is,  that 
the  doctrine,  however  improbable  in  itself,  is  necessary 
to  explain  some  particular  texts  of  Scripture  ;  and  that, 
if  it  had  not  been  for  those  particular  texts,  we  should 
have  found  no  want  of  it,  for  there  is  neither  any  fact 


IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  23 

in  nature,  nor  any  one  purpose  of  morals,  which  are  the 
object  and  end  of  all  religion,  that  requires  it.' 

"  The  non-importance  of  the  doctrine  has  been  a  fa- 
vorite subject  with  its  opposers  in  all  ages,  that  by  al- 
laying all  fears  in  the  minds  of  the  unwary,  as  to  the 
consequences  of  the  opposite  errors,  they  might  be  put 
off  their  guard,  and  be  the  more  easily  persuaded  to  part 
with  '  the  faith  delivered  to  the  saints.'  The  answer  is, 
however,  obvious. 

1.  "  The  knowledge  of  God  is  fundamental  to  reli- 
gion ;  and  as  we  know  nothing  of  him  but  what  he  has 
been  pleased  to  reveal,  and  as  these  revelations  have  all 
moral  ends,  and  are  designed  to  promote  piety  and  not 
to  gratify  curiosity,  all  that  he  has  revealed  of  himself 
in  particular,  must  partake  of  that  character  of  funda- 
mental importance,  which  belongs  to  the  knowledge  of 
God  in  the  aggregate.  '  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they 
might  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ 
whom  thou  hast  sent.'  Nothing,  therefore,  can  dis- 
prove the  fundamental  importance  of  the  Trinity  in 
Unity,  but  that  which  will  disprove  it  to  be  a  doctrine 
of  Scripture. 

2.  "  Dr.  Priestley  allows,  that  this  doctrine  '  is  ne- 
cessary to  explain  some  particular  texts  of  Scripture.' 
This  alone  is  sufficient  to  mark  its  importance ;  espe- 
cially as  it  can  be  shown,  that  these  'particular  texts 
of  Scripture'  comprehend  a  very  large  portion  of  the 
sacred  volume  ;  that  they  are  scattered  throughout  al- 
most all  the  books  of  both  Testaments  ;  that  they  are 
not  incidentally  introduced  only,  but  solemnly  laid 
down  as  revelations  of  the  nature  of  God  ;  and  that 
they  manifestly  give  the  tone  both  to  the  thinMng  and 
the  phrase  of  the  sacred  writers  on  many  other  weighty 
subjects.  That  which  is  necessary  to  explain  so  many 
passages  of  holy  writ ;  and  without  which,  they  are  so 
incorrigibly  unmeaning,  that  Unitarians  have  felt  them- 
selves obliged  to  submit  to  their  evidence,  or  to  ex- 
punge them  from  the  inspired  record,  carries  with  it  an 


24  IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

importance  of  the  highest  character.  So  important,  in- 
deed, is  it,  upon  the  showing  of  these  opposers  of  the 
truth  themselves,  that  we  can  only  preserve  the  Scrip- 
tures by  admitting  it ;  for  they,  first  by  excepting  to  the 
genuineness  of  certain  passages,  then  by  questioning 
the  inspiration  of  whole  books,  and,  finally,  of  the 
greater  part,  if  not  the  whole  New  Testament,  have 
nearly  left  themselves  as  destitute  of  a  revelation  from 
God,  as  Infidels  themselves.  No  homage  more  ex- 
pressive has  ever  been  paid  to  this  doctrine,  as  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Scriptures,  than  the  liberties  thus  taken 
with  the  Bible,  by  those  who  have  denied  it ;  no  stron- 
ger proof  can  be  offered  of  its  importance,  than  that  the 
Bible  cannot  be  interpreted  upon  any  substituted  theo- 
ry, they  themselves  being  the  judges. 

3.  "It  essentially  affects  our  views  of  God  as  the  ob- 
ject of  our  worship,  whether  we  regard  him  as  one  in 
essence,  and  one  in  person,  or  admit  that  in  the  unity  of 
this  Godhead  there  are  three  equally  Divine  persons. 
These  are  two  very  different  conceptions.  Both  can- 
not be  true.  The  God  of  those  who  deny  the  Trinity, 
is  not  the  God  of  those  who  worship  the  Trinity  in 
Unity,  nor  on  the  contrary;  so  that  one  or  the  other 
worships  what  is  '  nothing  in  the  world  ;'  and,  for  any 
reality  in  the  object  of  worship,  might  as  well  worship 
a  Pagan  idol,  which  also,  says  St.  Paul,  '  is  nothing  in 
the  world.'  '  If  God  be  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
the  duties  owing  to  God  will  be  duties  owing  to  that 
triune  distinction,  which  must  be  paid  accordingly  ;  and 
whoever  leaves  any  of  them  out  of  his  idea  of  God, 
comes  so  far  short  of  honoring  God  perfectly,  and  of 
serving  him  in  proportion  to  the  manifestations  he  has 
made  of  himself.' 

As  the  object  of  our  worship  is  affected  by  our  re- 
spective views  on  this  great  subject,  so  also  its  charac- 
ter. We  are  betwixt  the  extremes  of  pure  and  accept- 
able devotion,  and  of  gross  and  offensive  idolatry,  and 
must  run  to  one  or  the  other.     If  the  doctrine  of  the 


IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    TRINITY*  25 

Trinity  be  true,  then  those  who  deny  it  do  not  worship 
the  God  of  the  Scriptures,  but  a  fiction  of  their  own 
framing  ;  if  it  be  false,  the  Trinitarian,  by  paying  Di- 
vine honors  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  equal- 
ly guilty  of  idolatry,  though  in  another  mode. 

"  Now  it  is  surely  important  to  determine  this  ;  and 
which  is  the  most  likely  to  have  fallen  into  this  false  and 
corrupt  worship,  the  very  prima  facie  evidence  may  de- 
termine : — the  Trinitarian,  who  ±:as  the  letter,  and  plain 
common-sense  interpretation  of  ScHyture  for  his  war- 
rant ; — ^or  he  who  confesses,  that  he  .^ust  resort  to  all 
the  artifices  of  criticism,  and  boldly  challenge  the  in- 
spiration of  an  authenticated  volume,  to  get  rid  of  the 
evidence  which  it  exhibits  against  him,  if  taken  in  its 
first  and  most  obvious  meaning.     It  is  not  now  attempt- 
ed to  prove  the  Unitarian  heresy  from  the  Scriptures  ; 
this  has  long  been  given  up,  and  the  main  effort  of  all 
modern  writers  on  that  side  has  been  directed  to  cavil 
at  the  adduced  proofs  of  the  opposite  doctrine.     They 
are,  as  to  Scripture  argument,  wholly  on  the  defensive, 
and  thus  allow,  at  least,  that  they  have  no  direct  war- 
rant for  their  opinions.     We  acknowledge,  indeed,  that 
the  charge  of  idolatry  would  lie  against  us,  could  we  be 
proved  in  error ;  but  they  seem  to  forget,  that  it  lies 
against  them,  should  they  be  in  error ;  and  that  they 
are  in  this  eiTor,  they  themselves  tacitly  acknowledge,  if 
the  Scriptures,  which  they  now,  in  a  great  measure,  reject, 
must  determine  the  question.     On  that  authority,  we 
may  unhesitatingly  account  them  idolaters,  worshippers 
of  what  ^  is  nothing  in  the  world ;'  and  not  of  the  God 
revealed  in  the  Bible.     Thus,  the  only  hope  which  is 
left  to  the  Unitarian,  is  held  on  the  same  tenure  as  the 
hope  of  the  Deist, — the  forlorn  hope  that  the  Scrip- 
tures, which  he  rejects,  are  not  true  ;  for  if  those  texts 
they  reject,  and  those  books  which  they  hold  of  no  au- 
thority, be  established,  then  this  whole  charge,  and  its 
consequences,  lie  full  against  them. 

4.  "  Our  /ore  to  God,  which  is  the  sum  of  every  duty, 
3 


26  IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

its  sanctifying  motive,  and  consequently  a  compendium 
of  all  true  religion,  is  most  intimately  and  even  essential- 
ly connected  with  the  doctrine  in  question.     God's  love 
to  us  is  the  ground  of  our  love  to  him  ;  and  by  our  views 
of  that,  it  must  be  heightened  or  diminished.     The  love 
of  God  to  man  in  the  gift  of  his  Son  is  that  manifesta- 
tion of  it  on  which  the  Scriptures  most  emphatically  and 
frequently  dwell,  and  on  which  they  establish  our  duty 
of  loving  God  and  one  another.     Now  the   estimate 
which  we  are  to  take  of  the  love  of  God,  must  be  the 
value  of  his  gifts  to  us.     His  greatest  gift  is  the  gift  of 
his  Son,  through  whom  alone  we  have  the  promise  of 
everlasting  life ;  but  our  estimate  of  the  love  which 
gives  must  be  widely  different,  according  as  we  regard 
the  gift  bestowed, — as  a  creature,  or  as  a  Divine  per- 
son,— as  merely  a  Son  of  man,  or  as  the  Son  of  God. 
If  the  former  only,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  in  what  this 
love,  constantly  represented,  as  '  unspeakahU^  and  aston- 
ishing, could  consist.     Indeed,  if  we  suppose  Christ  to 
be  a  man  only,  on  the  Socinian  scheme,  or  as  an  exalt- 
ed creature,  according  to  the  Arians,  God  might  be  ra- 
ther said  to  have  '  so  loved  his  Son''  than  us,  as  to  send 
him  into  the  world,  on  a  service  so  honorable  and  which 
was  to  be  followed  by  so  high  and  vast  a  reward,  that 
he,  a  creature,  should  be  advanced  to  universal  domin- 
ion and  receive   universal  homage  as  the  price  only  of 
temporary  sufferings,  which,  upon  either  the  Socinian 
or  Arian   scheme,  were   not  greater  than  those  which 
many  of  his  disciples  endured  after  him,  and,  in  many 
instances,  not  so  great. 

"  For  the  same  reason,  the  doctrine  which  denies  our 
Lord's  divinity  diminishes  the  love  of  Christ  himself, 
takes  away  its  generosity  and  devotedness,  presents  it 
under  views  infinitely  below  those  contained  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  weakens  the  motives  which  are  drawn 
from  it  to  excite  our  gratitude  and  obedience.  '  If 
Christ  was  in  the  form  of  God,  equal  with  God,  and 
very  God,  it  was  then  an  act  of  infinite  love  and  con- 


IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  27 

descension  in  him  to  become  man  ;  but  if  he  was  no 
more  than  a  creature,  it  was  no  surprising  condescen- 
sion to  embark  in  a  work  so  glorious  ;  such  as  being  the 
Saviour  of  mankind,  and  such  as  would  advance  him 
to  be  Lord  and  Judge  of  the  world,  to  be  admired,  rev- 
erenced, and  adored,  both  by  men  and  angels.' — Wa- 
terland.  To  this  it  may  be  added,  that  the  idea  of  dis- 
interested, generous  love,  such  as  the  loye  Christ  is  re- 
presented to  be  by  the  Evangelists  and  the  Apostles, 
cannot  be  supported  upon  any  supposition  but  that  he 
was  properly  a  Divine  person.  As  a  man  and  as  a 
creature  only,  however  exalted,  he  would  have  profited 
by  his  exaltation ;  but,  considered  as  Divine,  Christ 
gained  nothing.  God  is  full  and  perfect — he  is  exalt- 
ed ^  above  blessing  and  praise.'  The  whole,  therefore, 
was  in  him  generous,  disinterested  love,  ineffable  and 
affecting  condescension.  The  heresy  of  the  Socinians 
and  Arians  totally  annihilates,  therefore,  the  true  char- 
acter of  the  love  of  Christ,  '  so  that,'  as  Dr.  Sherlock 
well  observes,  '  to  deny  the  Divinity  of  Christ  alters 
tlie  very  foundations  of  Christianity,  and  destroys  all 
the  powerful  arguments  of  the  love,  humility,  and  con- 
descension of  our  Lord,  which  are  the  peculiar  motives 
of  the  Gospel.' — Stilling jieet. 

"  But  it  is  not  only  in  this  view  that  the  denial  of  the 
Divinity  of  our  Lord  would  alter  the  foundation  of  the 
Christian  scheme,  but  in  others  equally  essential ;  For, 

1.  "The  doctrine  of  satisfaction  or  atonement  de- 
pends upon  his  Divinity ;  and  it  is,  therefore,  consis- 
tently denied  by  those  who  reject  the  former.  So  im- 
portant, however,  is  the  decision  of  this  case,  that  the 
very  terms  of  our  salvation,  and  the  ground  of  our 
hope,  are  affected  by  it. 

"  '  No  creature  could  merit  from  God,  or  do  works  of 
supererogation.  If  it  be  said  that  God  might  accept  it 
as  he  pleased,  it  may  be  said,  upon  the  same  principle, 
that  he  might  accept  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats. 
Yet  the  Apostle  tells  us,  that  it  is  not  possible  that  the 


28  IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

hlood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  taJce  away  sin; 
which  words  resolve  the  satisfaction,  not  merely  into 
God's  free  acceptance,  but  into  the  intrinsic  value  of 
the  sacrifice.' — Waterland.  Hence  the  Scriptures  so 
constantly  connect  the  atonement  with  the  character, — 
the  very  Divinity  of  the  person  suffering.  It  was  Je- 
hovah who  was  pierced,  Zech.  xii.  1 1  ;  God,  who  pur- 
chased the  church  with  his  own  hlood,  Acts  xx.  28.  It 
was  the  Lord,  that  bought  us,  2  Pet.  ii.  1.  It  was  the 
Ijord  of  glory  that  was  crucified,  1  Cor.  ii.  8. 

"It  is  no  small  presumption  of  the  impossibility  of 
holding,  with  any  support  from  the  common  sense  of 
mankind,  the  doctrine  of  atonement  with  that  of  an  in- 
ferior Divinity,  that  these  opinions  have  so  uniformly 
slided  down  into  a  total  denial  of  it ;  and  by  almost  all 
persons,  except  those  who  have  retained  the  pure  faith 
of  the  Gospel,  Christ  is  regarded  as  a  man  only  ;  and 
no  atonement,  in  any  sense,  is  allowed  to  have  been 
made  by  his  death.  The  terms,  then,  of  human  salva- 
tion are  entirely  different  on  one  scheme  and  on  the 
other  ;  and  with  respect  to  their  advocates,  one  is  *  un- 
der laiv,^  the  other  '  under  grace  ;'  one  takes  the  cause 
of  his  own  salvation  into  his  own  hands,  to  manage  it 
as  he  is  able,  and  to  plead  with  God,  either  that  he  is 
just,  or  that  he  may  be  justified  by  his  own  penitence 
and  acts  of  obedient  virtue  ;  the  other  pleads  the  meri- 
torious death  and  intercession  of  his  Saviour ;  in  his 
name  and  mediation  makes  his  requests  known  unto 
God  ;  and  asks  a  justification  by  faith,  and  a  renewal  of 
heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  One  stands  with  all  his  of- 
fences before  his  Maker,  and  in  his  own  person,  without 
a  mediator  and  advocate ;  the  other  avails  himself  of 
both.  A  question  which  involves  such  consequences, 
is  surely  not  a  speculative  one  ;  but  deeply  practical  and 
vital,  and  must  be  found  to  be  so  in  its  final  issue. 

2.  "It  totally  changes  the  character  of  Christian  ex- 
perience. Those  strong  and  painful  emotions  of  sor- 
row and  alarm,  which  characterize  the  descriptions  and 


IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  29 

example  of  Repentance  in  the  Scriptures,  are  totally 
incongruous  and  uncalled  for,  upon  the  theory  which 
denies  man's  lost  condition,  and  his  salvation  by  a  pro- 
cess of  redemption.  Faith,  too,  undergoes  an  essen- 
tial change.  It  is  no  longer  faith  in  Christ.  His  doc- 
trine or  his  mission  are  its  objects  ;  but  not,  as  the  New 
Testament  states  it,  his  person,  as  a  surety,  a  sacrifice, 
a  mediator :  and  much  less  than  any  thing  else  can  it  be 
called,  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  'faith  in  his 
BLOOD,'  a  phrase  utterly  incapable  of  an  interpretation 
by  Unitarians.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  offer  up  prayer 
to  God  in  the  name  of  Christ,  though  expressly  enjoin- 
ed upon  his  disciples,  in  any  sense  which  would  not  jus- 
tify all  the  idolatry  of  the  Roman  Church,  in  availing 
themselves  of  the  names,  the  interests,  and  the  merits 
of  saints. 

3.  "  Love  to  Christ,  which  is  made  so  eminent  a 
grace  in  internal  and  experimental  Christianity,  changes 
also  its  character.  It  cannot  be  supreme,  for  that  would 
be  to  break  the  first  and  great  command,  '  Thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,'  if  Christ  him- 
self be  not  that  Lord  our  God.  It  must  be  love  of  the 
same  kind  we  feel  to  creatures  from  whom  we  have  re- 
ceived any  benefit,  and  a  passion,  therefore,  to  be  guard- 
ed and  restrained,  lest  it  should  become  excessive  and 
wean  our  hearts  and  thoughts  from  God.  But  surely  it 
is  not  under  such  views  that  love  to  Christ  is  represented 
in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  against  its  excess,  as  against  crea- 
turely  attachments,  we  have  certainly  no  admonition,  no 
cautions. 

4.  "  The  general  and  habitual  exercises  of  the  affec- 
tions of  TRUST,  HOPE,  JOY,  &ic.  towards  Christ,  are  all 
interfered  with  by  the  Unitarian  doctrine.  This  has, 
in  part,  been  stated ;  but  '  if  the  Redeemer  were  not 
omnipresent  and  omniscient,  could  we  be  certain  that 
he  always  hears  our  prayers,  and  knows  the  source  and 
remedy  of  all  our  miseries  ?  If  he  were  not  all-merciful, 
could  we  be  certain  he  must  always  be  willing  to  par- 

3* 


30  IMPORTANCE    OF    I^Rt    fRlf^tl^. 

don  and  relieve  us  ?  If  he  were  not  all  powerful,  could 
we  be  sure  that  he  must  always  be  able  to  support  and 
strengthen,  to  enlighten  and  direct  us  ?  Of  any  less 
being  than  God,  we  might  suspect  that  his  purposes 
might  waver,  his  promises  fail,  his  existence  itself,  per- 
haps terminate ;  for,  of  every  created  being,  the  exist- 
ence must  be  dependent  and  terminable.' 

The  language,  too,  I  say  not  of  the  Church  of  Christ 
in  all  ages,  for  that  that  has  been  formed  upon  her  faith, 
but  of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  must  be  altered  and 
brought  down  to  these  inferior  views.  No  dying  saint 
can  say,  'Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit,'  if  he  be  a 
man  like  ourselves  ;  and  the  redeemed  neither  in  heav- 
en nor  in  earth  can  dare  to  associate  a  creature  so  with 
God  in  divine  honors  and  solemn  worship,  as  to  unite  in 
the  chorus,  "  Blessing,  and  honor,  and  glory,  and  power 
be  unto  Him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the 
Lamb,  for  ever  1' 

"  The  same  essential  changes  must  be  made  in  the 
doctrine  of  Divine  agency  in  the  heart  of  man,  and  in 
the  church,  and  the  same  confusion  introduced  into  the 
language  of  Scripture.  '  Our  salvation  by  Christ  does 
not  consist  only  in  the  expiation  of  our  sins,  &tc.,  but  in 
communication  of  divine  grace  and  power,  to  renew  and 
sanctify  us :  and  this  is  every  where  in  Scripture  attri- 
buted to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  his  peculiar  office  in  the 
economy  of  man's  salvation  :  it  must  therefore  make  a 
fundamental  change  in  the  doctrine  of  divine  grace  and 
assistance,  to  deny  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  For 
can  a  creature  be  the  universal  spring  and  fountain  of 
divine  grace  and  life  !  Can  a  finite  creature  be  a  kind 
of  universal  soul  to  the  whole  Christian  Church,  and  to 
every  sincere  member  of  it  ?  Can  a  creature  make 
such  close  application  to  our  minds,know  our  thoughts, 
set  bounds  to  our  passions,  inspire  us  with  new  affec- 
tions and  desires,  and  to  be  more  intimate  to  us  than 
we  are  to  ourselves  ?  If  a  creature  be  the  only  instm- 
ment  and  principle  of  grace,  we  shall  soon  be  tempted 


IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  31 

either  to  deny  the  grace  of  God,  or  to  make  it  an  ex- 
ternal thing,  and  entertain  very  mean  conceits  of  it. 
All  this  has  been  felt  so  forcibly  by  the  deniers  of  the 
Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  they  have  escaped  on- 
ly by  taking  another  leap  down  the  gulf  of  error ;  and 
at  present  the  Unitarians  deny  that  there  is  any  Holy 
Ghost,  and  resolve  the  whole  into  a  figure  of  speech. 

^'  But  the  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Trinity  may  be  finally  argued  from  the  manner  in  which 
the  denial  of  it  would  affect  the  credit  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  themselves  ;  for  if  this  doctrine  be  not  con- 
tained in  them,  their  tendency  to  mislead  is  obvious. 
Their  constant  language  is  so  adapted  to  deceive,  and 
to  compel  the  belief  of  falsehood,  even  in  fundamental 
poinJ;s,  and  to  lead  to  the  practice  of  idolatry  itself,  that 
they  would  lose  all  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  revelation 
from  the  God  of  truth,  and  ought  rather  to  be  shunned 
than  to  be  studied.  A  great  part  of  the  Scriptures  is 
directed  against  idolatry,  which  is  declared  to  he  'that 
abominable  thing  which  the  Lord  hateth  ;'  and  in  pur- 
suance of  this  design,  the  doctrine  that  there  is  but  one 
God  is  laid  down  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  and  con- 
stantly confirmed  by  appeals  to  his  works.  The  very 
first  command  in  the  decalogue  is,  '  Thou  shalt  have 
no  other  gods  before  me  ;'  and  the  sum  of  the  law,  as 
to  our  duty  to  God,  is,  that  we  love  Him  '  with  all  our 
heart,  and  mind,  and  soul,  and  strength.'  If  the  doc- 
trine of  a  Trinity  of  Divine  persons  in  the  unity  of  the 
Godhead  be  consistent  with  all  this,  then  the  style  and 
manner  of  the  Scriptures  are  in  perfect  accordance  with 
the  moral  ends  they  propose,  and  the  truths  in  which 
they  would  instruct  mankind ;  but  if  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  are  creatures,  then  is  the  language  of  the 
sacred  books  most  deceptive  and  dangerous.  For  how 
is  it  to  be  accounted  for,  in  that  case,  that  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, God  should  be  spoken  of  in  plural  terms,  and 
that  this  plurality  should  be  restricted  to  three  ?  How 
is  it  that  the  very  name  Jehovah  should  ge  given  to  each 


32  IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

of  them,  and  that  repeatedly,  and  on  the  most  solemn 
occasions  ?  How  is  it  that  the  promised  incarnate  Mes- 
siah should  be  invested,  in  the  prophecies  of  his  advent, 
with  the  loftiest  attributes  of  God,  and  that  works  infi- 
nitely superhuman,  and  divine  honors  should  be  predict- 
ed of  him  ?  and  that  acts  and  characters  of  unequivocal 
divinity,  according  to  the  common  apprehensions  of 
mankind  should  be  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  also  ?  How 
is  it  that,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  name  of  God 
should  be  given  to  both,  and  that  without  any  intima- 
tion that  it  is  to  be  taken  in  an  inferior  sense  ?  That 
the  creation  and  conservation  of  all  things  should  be 
ascribed  to  Christ ;  that  he  should  be  worshipped  by 
angels  and  by  men  ;  that  he  should  be  represented  as 
seated  on  the  throne  of  the  universe,  to  receive  the  ado- 
rations of  all  creatures  ;  and  that  in  the  very  fonn  of 
initiation  by  baptism  into  his  church,  itself  a  public  and 
solemn  profession  of  faith,  the  baptism  is  enjoined  to  be 
performed  in  the  one  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost  ?  One  God  and  two  creatures !  As  though  the 
very  door  of  entrance  into  the  Christian  Church  should 
have  been  purposely  made  the  gate  of  the  worst  and 
most  corrupting  error  ever  introduced  among  mankind — 
trust  and  worship  in  creatures,  as  God ;  the  error  which 
has  spread  darkness  and  moral  desolation  over  the  whole 
pagan  world ! 

And  here  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  question  is  beg- 
ged— that  more  is  taken  for  granted  than  Unitarians 
will  allow  ;  for  this  argument  does  not  rest  at  all  upon 
what  the  denier's  of  our  Lord's  Divinity  understand  by 
all  these  terms,  and  what  interpretations  may  be  put 
upon  them.  This  is  the  popular  view  of  the  subject 
which  has  just  been  drawn  from  the  Scriptures ;  and 
they  themselves  acknowledge  it  by  resorting  to  the  arts 
and  labors  of  far-fetched  criticism,  in  order  to  attach  to 
these  passages  of  Scripture  a  sense  different  to  the  obvi- 
ous and  popular  one.  It  is  so  taken,  and  has  been  taken 
in  all  ages,  by  the  wisest  men  and  most  competent  critics, 


IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  33 

to  be  the  only  consistent  senses  of  the  sacred  vohime  ; 
a  ch'cumstance  which  still  more  strongly  proves,  that  if 
the  Scriptures  were  written  on  Unitarian  principles  they 
are  more  unfortunately  expressed  than  any  book  in  the 
world ;  and  they  can,  on  no  account,  be  considered  a 
Divine  Revelation,  not  because  of  their  obscurity,  for 
they  are  not  obscure,  but  because  terms  are  used  in  them 
which  convey  a  sense  different  from  what  the  writers 
intended,  if  indeed  they  were  Unitarians.  But  their 
evidences  prove  them  to  be  a  revelation  of  truths  from 
the  God  of  truth,  and  they  cannot  therefore  be  so  writ- 
ten as  to  lead  men,  who  use  only  ordinary  care,  into  fun- 
damental error;  and  the  conclusion,  therefore,  must  in- 
evitably be,  that  if  we  must  admit  either  on  the  one 
hand  what  is  so  derogatory  to  the  Scriptures,  and  so 
subversive  of  all  confidence  in  them,  or,  on  the  other, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit  is  there  explicitly  taught,  these  is  no  medium 
between  absolute  infidelity  and  the  acknowledgment 
of  our  Lord's  Divinity ;  and,  indeed,  to  adopt  the 
representation  of  a  great  divine,  it  is  rather  to  rave 
than  to  reason,  to  suppose  that  he  whom  the  Scriptures 
teach  us  to  regard  as  the  Saviour  of  our  souls,  and  as 
our  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemp- 
tion ;  he  who  hears  our  prayers,  and  is  always  present 
with  his  Church  throughout  the  world,  who  sits  at 
the  right  hand  of  God,  in  the  glory  of  his  Father, 
and  who  shall  come  at  the  last  day,  in  glory  and  majes- 
ty, accompanied  with  ministering  angels,  to  judge  all 
mankind  and  to  bring  to  light  the  very  secrets  of  their 
hearts,  should  be  a  mere  man,  or  a  created  being  of  any 
kind." — Watson, 


34  PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY^ 


CHAPTER  III. 

PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY    OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

"  When  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  considered 
in  its  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  there 
are  two  points  nearly  related  to  each  other,  which  claim 
our  attention :  viz.  I.  Whether  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a 
mere  energy,  or  a  real  person  ?  H,  Whether  he  be  a 
creature,  or  God  ? 

I.  "  In  entering  upon  the  first  of  these  inquiries,  it  is 
necessary  to  state  distinctly,  that  we  are  not  at  present 
inquiring  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a  third  person  in 
tlie  Godhead.  With  that  question  we  have  here  noth- 
ing to  do.  Our  object  is,  to  ascertain  whether  the  Holy 
Spirit  be,  on  the  one  hand,  the  mere  operation  of  God, 
or,  on  the  other  hand,  an  intelligent  and  voluntary  agent, 
i.  e.  a  person."     And, 

1.  "  The  mode  of  his  subsistence  in  the  sacred  Trini- 
ty proves  his  Personality.  }ie  proceeds  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  either.  To  say 
that  an  attribute  proceeds  and  comes  forth  would  be  a 
gross  absurdity. 

2.  "From  so  many  Scriptures  being  wholly  unintel- 
ligible and  even  absurd,  unless  the  Holy  Ghost  is  allow- 
ed to  be  a  person.  For  as  those  who  take  the  phrase 
as  ascribing  no  more  than  a  figurative  Personality  to  an 
attribute,  make  that  attribute  to  be  the  energy  or  power 
of  God,  they  reduce  such  passages  as  the  following  to 
utter  unmeaningness :  '  God  anointed  Jesus  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  power, ^  that  is,  with  the  power  of 
God  and  with  power.  '  That  ye  may  abound  in  hope 
through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  that  is,  through 
the  power  of  power.  '  In  demonstration  of  the  Spirit 
and  of  power,'  that  is,  in  demonstration  of  power  and 
of  power.     And  if  it  should  be  pleaded  that  the  last 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  35 

passage  is  a  Hebraism  for  '  powerful  demonstration  of 
the  Spirit,'  it  makes  the  interpretation  still  more  obvi- 
ously absurd,  for  it  would  then  be  '  the  powerful  de- 
monstration of  pow  er.'  '  It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy 
Ghost,'  to  the  power  of  God,  '  and  to  us.'  '  Tlie  Spi- 
rit and  the  bride  say.  Come,' — the  power  of  God  and 
the  bride  say.  Come.  Modern  Unitarians,  from  Dr. 
Priestley  to  Mr.  Belsham,  venture  to  find  fault  with  the 
style  of  the  Apostles  iu  some  instances  ;  and  those  pen- 
men of  the  Holy  Spirit  have,  indeed,  a  very  unfortu- 
nate method  of  expressing  themselves  for  those  who 
would  make  them  the  patrons  of  Unitarianism  ;  but 
they  would  more  justly  deserve  the  censures  of  these 
judges  of  the  '  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost'  taught,  had 
they  been  really  such  writers  as  the  Unitarian  scheme 
would  make  them,  and  of  which  the  above  are  instan- 
ces. 

3.  "  Personification  of  any  kind  is,  in  some  passages 
in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  spoken  of,  impossible.  The 
reality  which  this  figure  of  speech  is  said  to  present  to  us 
is  either  some  of  the  attributes  of  God,  or  else  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Gospel.  Let  this  theory,  then,  be  tried 
upon  the  following  passages :  '  He  shall  not  speak  of 
himself,  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he 
speak.'  What  attribute  of  God  can  here  be  personifi- 
ed ?  And  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  be  arrayed 
with  personal  attributes,  where  is  there  an  instance  of 
so  monstrous  a  prosopopaeia  as  this  passage  would  pre- 
sent?— the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  not  speaking  *of 
himself  but  speaking  'whatsoever  he  shall  hear!' — 
'  The  Spirit  maketh  intercession  for  us.'  What  attri- 
bute is  capable  of  interceding,  or  how  can  the  doctrine 
of  the  Gospel  intercede  ?  Personification,  too,  is  the 
language  of  poetry,  and  takes  place  naturally  only  in 
excited  and  elevated  discourse  ;  but  if  the  Holy  Spirit 
be  a  personification,  we  find  it  in  the  ordinary  and  cool 
strain  of  mere  narration  and  argumentative  discourse  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  most  incidental  conver- 


36  PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY 

sations.  '  Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye 
beheved?  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether 
there  be  any  Holy  Ghost.'  How  impossible  is  it  here 
to  extort,  by  any  process  whatever,  even  the  shadow  of 
a  personification  of  either  any  attribute  of  God,  or  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel.  So  again,  '  The  Spirit 
said  unto  Philip,  Go  near,  and  join  thyself  to  this  cha- 
riot.' Could  it  be  any  attribute  of  God  which  said  this, 
or  could  it  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel." — Watson. 

4.  That  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  person,  and  not  an  at- 
tribute, is  proved  by  the  use  of  masculine  pronouns  and 
relatives  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  in  con- 
nection with  the  neuter  noun  Spirit ;  and  by  so  many 
distinct  personal  acts  being  ascribed  to  him,  as  in  the 
following  passages  of  Scripture  :  He  creates  and  gives 
life,  Job  xxxiii.  4,  is  seen  descending  in  a  bodily  shape, 
Luke  iii.  22,  commands  apostles,  Acts  viii.  29,  and  xi. 

12,  lifts  up  an  apostle  through  the  air  by  his  own  power, 
V.  39,  sends  messengers,  Acts  x.  19,  appoints  ministers 
in  the  church.  Acts  xx.  28,  calls  apostles,  Acts  xiii.  2, 
bestows  gifts,  Heb.  ii.  4,  speaketh  to  the  churches.  Rev. 
ii.  7,  spake  by  the  prophets.  Acts  xxviii.  15,  2  Pet.  i. 
21,  speaketh  expressly,  1  Tim.  iv.  1,  renews  his  peo- 
ple, Titus  iii.  5,  helpeth  infirmities,  Rom.  viii.  26, 
maketh  intercession,  Rom.  viii.  26,  reveals  mysteries, 
Eph.  iii.  5,  searcheth  all  things,  1  Cor.  ii.  10,  teacheth 
all  things,  John  xiv.  26,  guideth  into  all  truth,  John  xvi. 

13,  beareth  witness  in  earth  and  heaven,  Rom.  viii.  16, 
1  John  v.  6,  pronounceth  worth  of  blessing.  Rev.  xiv. 
13,  testifies  of  Christ,  John  xv.  26,  glorifies  Christ,  John 
xvi.  14,  is  ANOTHER  Comforter,  distinct  from 
Christ,  John  xiv.  16,  has  a  77iind  of  his  own,  Rom.  viii. 
27,  has  a  will  of  his  own,  1  Cor.  xii.  11,  has  a  power 
of  his  own,  Rom.  xv.  13,  has  worship  performed  in  his 
name,  together  with  the  Father  and  Son,  Matt,  xxviii.  19, 
has  a  temple  for  his  worship,  1  Cor.  vi.  15,  abides  with 
his  people  forever,  John  xiv.  16,  and,  by  no  people  is  blas- 
phemed, but  upon  the  peril  of  damnation,  Matt.  xii.  31. 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  37 

In  addition  to  this,  it  may  be  remarked,  that  if  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  nothing  but  an  attribute,  and  not  a  person, 
he  must  be  destitute  of  intelligence,  for  how  can  an  attri- 
bute be  said  to  know  ?  Is  not  the  idea  of  personality 
and  intelhgence  inseperably  connected  ?  If  so,  then  a 
denial  of  the  one  amounts  to  a  denial  of  the  other. 
This  is  conceded  by  the  Unitarians.  The  concession 
was  once  made  in  the  presence  of  the  writer  by  the 
Rev.  James  Hayes,  while  in  public  controversy.  Be- 
ing asked  by  the  Rev.  John  H.  Power  if  the  Comfort- 
er, ''which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,"  that  the  Saviour  prom- 
ised to  send  into  the  world,  was  God  the  Father,  he  an- 
swered, No.  Was  it  a  person  ?  He  replied.  No.  Was 
it  an  agent  ?  He  said.  Yes.  Was  it  an  intelligent 
agent?  He  responded,  No.  Consequently  we  were 
led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Holy  Ghost  which  was  to 
reprove  the  world  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  a 
judgment  to  come — which  was  to  comfort  and  sanctify 
the  children  of  God,  was  perfectly  ignorant,  an  unintel- 
ligent agent. 

This  imputation  of  perfect  ignorance  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  not  peculiar,  however,  to  Mr.  Hayes.  It  ne- 
cessarily follows  from  a  denial  of  his  personality,  and 
is,  we  believe,  admitted  by  a  majority  of  Unitarians. 

We  will  now  pass  to  answer  some  objections  urged 
against  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  first 
is  based  upon  certain  figurative  expressions,  and  is  thus 
stated  by  Mr.  Millard,  in  his  True  Messiah,  pp.  83. 

"  The  Spirit  is  represented  as  something  with  which 
a  person  can  be  anointed.  '  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
God  is  upon  me  ;  because  the  Lord  hath  anointed  me  to 
preach  good  tidings  unto  the  meek.'  Isa.  Ixi.  L  The 
Lord  Jesus  in  this  passage,  is  represented  as  one  whom 
the  Lord  God  had  anionted  with  his  Spirit.  In  another 
passage  this  same  Spirit  is  called  oiV 

"  Now  I  would  ask  my  candid  reader  how  he  can  form 
any  consistent   idea  of  those  passages  of  Scripture,   if 
he  believe  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  a  person  ?     It  is  rep- 
4 


38  PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY 

resented  by  oil,  and  by  an  unction  which  God  is  rep- 
resented as  anointing  his  Son  with.  God  said,  '  I 
will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh.'  Acts  ii.  17. 
Here  the  Spirit  is  represented  as  something  that  may  be 
poured  out.'^ 

Mr.  Grundy  says : 

"  The  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  be  given  by  measure  ;  to 
be  poured  out ;  the  disciples  are  said  to  be  filled  and 
baptized  with  it ;  it  is  said  to  be  quenched  ;  and  in  sever- 
al instances  it  is  said  to  be  divided.  How  do  these  say- 
ings agree  with  the  idea  of  his  personality  ?"  Vol.  i. 
pp.  166,  168. 

In  this  objection  we  are  presented  with  a  literary  cu- 
riosity !  How  is  it  that  Unitarians  who  are  perpetually 
dreaming  about  metaphors,  can  see  none  here  ?  When 
they  are  determined  to  interpret  all  these  Scrip- 
tural •  expressions  literally,  do  they  not  seize  the  long 
sought  opportunity  to  prove  that  the  Spirit  is  not  spirit, 
but  matter  ?  What  but  matter,  Which  is  an  extended 
substance,  can  be  measured,  divided,  poured  out? 
What  but  fire,  which  is  matter,  can  be  extinguished  ? 
And  wherewith  can  any  man  be  washed  but  with  water, 
which  is  another  species  of  matter  ?  And  lastly,  what 
is  spirit  but  breath  or  wind,  that  is  air  which  is  also  ma- 
terial ?  Thus  the  demonstration  is  complete,  and  the 
favorite  system  of  materialism  is  triumphant.  But  ev- 
ery unprejudiced  person  will  at  once  see  that  all  these 
are  figurative  expressions,  by  which  the  properties  of 
matter  are  predicated  of  spirit ;  and  therefore  that  every 
argument  founded  upon  the  literal  interpretation  of  them 
must  fall  to  the  ground.  Unless  Unitarians  seriously 
intend  to  deny  all  spirituality  of  the  Spirit,  they  will 
find  that  this  objection  is  leveled  against  their  own  as 
much  as  the  common  hypothesis.  They  think  it  '  per- 
fectly rational  to  suppose  that  the  Divine  attributes  were 
divided,  measured,  and  poured  out,  or  that  persons  were 
baptized  with  them,  or  quenched  them.'  Now  let  them 
be  asked,  What  is  the  cubic  measure  of  any  one  of  the 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  39 

Divine  attributes  ?  Into  how  many  parts  is  it  divisible  ? 
What  quantity  of  it  will  fill  a  man  of  ordinary  stature  ? 
After  a  division  of  it  into  many  parts,  do  these  parts 
attract  each  other  again,  or  does  division  annihilate  some 
of  them  ?  What  becomes  of  it  when  it  is  quenched  ? 
^'  O,"  say  Unitarians,  "  these  are  figurative  expressions." 
The  answer  is  satisfactory  ;  but  equally  so  as  a  reply  to 
their  objections  to  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Their  next  objection  is  founded  on  the  supposed  ig- 
norance of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Because  our  Lord  has 
said,  ''  No  one  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  neither 
knoweth  any  one  the  Father  save  the  Son,"  Unitarians 
infer  that  the  Holy  Spirit  knew  neither  the  Father  nor 
the  Son,  without  a  special  revelation.  From  hence  they 
argue  that  "  the  Holy  Spirit  cannot  possibly  be  a  person 
in  the  Godhead  distinct  from  the  Father." 

This  argument  is  founded  on  a  gross  mistake.  For, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  "  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things, 
yea,  the  deep  things  of  God."  What  is  here  said  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  is  therefore  asserted  also  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  "  No  one  knoweth  the  things  of  God, 
but  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  he  to  whom  the  Spirit  of  God 
shall  reveal  them."  Will  Unitarians  now  draw  the 
same  inference  concerning  the  Father  and  the  Son  ? 

Lastly:  The  expressions  of  the  Holy  Spirit  being 
given  by  the  Father,  and  sent  by  Jesus  Christ,  are  said 
to  be  incompatible  with  the  idea  of  its  being  a  per- 
son. 

What  an  argument !  So  the  Son  of  God  was  not  a 
person,  because,  forsooth,  "  God  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,"  John  iii.  16  ;  and 
because  the  Father  "  sent  him  into  the  world."  But 
for  this  Unitarians  have  an  answer.  We  are  inform,ed 
that  Jesus  Christ  "  came  voluntarily."  But  if  it  had 
not  been  expressly  said  that  Jesus  Christ  came  volun- 
tarily into  the  world,  they  would  have  denied  him  the 
honor  of  personality.  And  yet  every  one  of  us  came 
into  the  world  involuntarily. 


40  PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY 

11.  Having,  as  we  consider,  established  the  proper 
personahty  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  upon  the  authority  of 
the  word  of  God,  we  shall  now  pass  to  offer  some  addi- 
tional arguments,  going  to  show  not  only  that  he  is  a 
person,  but  that  he  is  a  Divine  Person,  and  consequent- 
ly God. 

1.  "The  Spirit  is  represented  as  an  agent  in  crea- 
tion, '  moving  upon  the  face  of  the  waters,'  and  it  forms 
no  objection  to  the  argument,  that  creation  is  ascribed 
to  the  Father,  and  also  to  the  Son,  but  great  cQjifirma- 
tion  of  it.  That  creation  should  be  effected  be  all  the 
three  Persons  of  the  Godhead,  though  acting  in  differ- 
ent respects,  yet  so  that  each  should  be  a  Creator,  and, 
therefore,  both  a  Person,  and  a  Divine  Person,  can  be 
explained  only  by  their  unity  in  one  essence.  On  ev- 
ery other  hypothesis  this  Scriptural  fact  is  disallowed, 
and  therefore  no  other  hypothesis  can  be  true.  If  the 
Spirit  of  God  be  a  mere  influence,  then  he  is  not  a  Cre^ 
ator,  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  because  he 
is  not  a  person  ;  but  this  is  refuted,  both  by  the  passage 
just  quoted  and  by  Pslam  xxxii.  6,  "  By  the  Word  of 
THE  Lord  were  the  heavens  made  ;  and  all  the  host  of 
them  by  the  breath  (Heb.  Spirit)  of  his  mouth." 
This  is  farther  confirmed  by  Job  xxxiii.  4,  '  The  Spir- 
it OF  God  hath  made  me,  and  the  breath  of  the  Al- 
mighty hath  given  me  life ;'  where  the  second  clause 
is  obviously  exegetic  of  the  former,  and  the  whole  text 
proves  that,  in  the  patriarchal  age,  the  followers  of  the 
true  religion  ascribed  creation  to  the  Spirit,  as  well  as 
to  the  Father  ;  and  that  one  of  his  appellations  was  '  the 
Breath  of  the  Almighty.'  Did  such  passages  stand 
alone,  there  might,  indeed,  be  some  plausibihty  in  the 
criticism  which  solves  them  by  a  personification  ;  but 
connected  as  they  are  with  that  whole  body  of  evidence, 
which  has  been  and  shall  be  adduced,  as  to  the  con- 
curring doctrine  of  both  Testaments,  they  are  inex- 
pungable.  Again  :  if  the  Personality  of  the  Son  and 
the  Spirit  be  allowed,  and  yet  it  is  contended  that  they 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  41 

were  but  instruments  in  creation,  through  whom  the 
creative  power  of  another  operated,  but  which  creative 
power  was  not  possessed  by  them  ;  on  this  hypothesis, 
too,  neither  the  Spirit  nor  the  Son  can  be  said  to  cre- 
ate, any  more  than  Moses  created  the  serpent  into 
which  his  rod  was  turned,  and  the  Scriptures  are  again 
contradicted.  To  this  association  of  three  Persons  in 
creative  acts  may  be  added  a  hke  association  in  acts  of 
PRESERVATION,  which  has  been  well  called  a  continued 
creation,  and  by  that  term  is  expressed  in  the  following 
passage  :  Psalm  civ.  27-30,  '  These  wait  all  upon  thee, 
that  thou  may  est  give  them  their  meat  in  due  season. 
Thou  hidest  thy  face,  they  are  troubled ;  thou  takest 
away  their  breath,  they  die,  and  return  to  dust :  thou 
SENDEST  FORTH  THY  SpiRiT,  they  are  created,  and  thou 
renewest  the  face  of  the  earth.'  It  is  not  surely  here 
meant  that  the  Spirit,  by  which  the  generations  of  ani- 
mals are  perpetuated,  is  wind ;  and  if  he  be  called  an 
attribute,  wisdom,  power,  or  both  united,  where  do  we 
read  of  such  attributes  being  '  sent,'  '  sent  forth  from 
God?'  The  personality  of  the  Spirit  is  here  as  clearly 
marked  as  when  St.  Paul  speaks  of  God  'sending  forth 
the  Spirit  of  his  Son,'  and  when  our  Lord  promises  to 
"  send  "  the  Comforter;  and  as  the  upholding  and  pre- 
serving of  created  things  is  ascribed  to  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  so  here  they  are  ascribed,  also,  to  the  Spirit, 
'  sent  forth  from '  God  to  '  create  and  renew  the  face  of 
the  earth.' 

2.  "  The  next  association  of  the  three  Persons  we 
find  in  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets.  '  God  spake 
unto  our  fathers  by  the  prophets,'  says  St.  Paul,  Heb. 
i.  1.  St.  Peter  declares,  these  '  holy  men  of  God  spake 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,'  2  Pet.  i.  21 ; 
and  also  that  it  was  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in 
them,'  1  Pet.  i.  11.  We  may  defy  any  Unitarian  to 
interpret  these  three  passages  by  making  the  Spirit  an 
influence  or  attribute,  and  thereby  reducing  the  term 
Holy  Ghost  into  a  figure  of  speech.  '  God,^  in  the 
4* 


42  PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY 

first  passages,  is,  unquestionably,  God  the  Father,  and 
the  '  holy  men  of  God,'  the  prophets,  would  then,  ac- 
cording to  this  view,  be  moved  by  the  influence  of  the 
Father ;  but  the  influence,  according  to  the  third  pas- 
sage, which  was  the  source  of  their  inspiration,  was 
the  Spirit,  or  the  influence  of  '  Christ.'  Thus  the  pas- 
sages contradict  each  other.  Allow  the  Trinity  in  uni- 
ty, and  you  have  no  difficulty  in  calling  the  Spirit,  the 
Spirit  of  the  Father,  and  Spirit  of  the  Son,  or  the  Spir- 
it of  either ;  but  if  the  Spirit  be  an  influence,  that  in- 
fluence cannot  be  the  influence  of  two  persons,  on  God 
and  the  other  a  creature. 

3.  "  The  very  important  fact,  that,  in  the  vision  of 
Isaiah,  chapter  vi,  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  who  spake  un- 
to the  prophet,  is,  in  Acts  xxviii.  25,  said  to  be  the 
Holy  Ghost  who  spake  to  the  prophet,  while  St.  John 
declares  that  the  glory  which  Isaiah  saw  was  the  glory  of 
Christ,  proves  indisputably,  that  each  of  three  Per- 
sons bears  this  august  appellation  ;  it  gives  also  the  rea- 
son for  the  threefold  repetition  '  Holy,  Holy,  Holy,' 
and  it  exhibits  the  prophet  and  the  very  seraphs  in  deep 
and  awful  adoration  before  the  Triune  Lord  of  Hosts. 
Both  the  prophet  and  the  seraphim  were,  therefore, 
worshippers  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  the  Son,  at  the 
very  time  and  by  the  very  acts  in  which  they  worship- 
ped the  Father,  which  proves  that,  as  the  three  Persons 
received  equal  homage  in  a  case  which  does  not  admit 
of  the  evasion  of  pretended  superior  and  inferior  wor- 
ship, they  are  equal  in  majesty,  glory,  and  essence. 

4.  "As  in  the  tabernacle  form  of  benediction,  the 
Triune  Jehovah  is  recognized  as  the  source  of  all  grace 
and  peace  to  his  creatures  ;  so  in  apostolic  formula  of 
blessing,  '  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
love  of  God,  and  the  communion  on  the  Holy  Spirit, 
be  with  you  all.  Amen.'  Here  the  personality  of  the 
three  is  kept  distinct,  and  the  prayer  to  the  three  is, 
that  Christians  may  have  a  common' participation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  that  is,  doubtless,  as  he  was  promised  by 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  43 

our  Lord  to  his  disciples,  as  a  Comforter,  as  the  source 
of  Hght  and  spiritual  life,  as  the  author  of  regeneration. 
Thus  the  Spirit  is  acknowledged,  equally  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  to  be  the  source  and  the  giver  of 
the  highest  spiritual  blessing,  while  this  solemn  ministe- 
rial benediction  is,  from  its  specific  character,  to  be  re- 
garded as  an  act  of  payer  to  each  of  the  three  Persons, 
and  therefore  is,  at  once,  an  acknowledgement  of  the 
Divinity  and  Personality  of  each. 

"  The  form  of  baptism  next  presents  itself  with  de- 
monstrative evidence  on  the  two  points  before  us,  the 
Personality  and  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     It  is  the 
form  of  COVENANT  by  which  the  sacred  Three  become 
our  ONE  or  only   God,   and   we  become  his  people. 
'Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
in  THE  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.'     In  what  manner  is  this  text  to  be 
disposed  of,  if  the  Personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  de- 
nied ?     Is  the  form  of  baptism  to  be  so  understood  as 
to  imply  that  it  is  baptism  in  the  name  of  one  God,  one 
creature,  and  one  attribute  1     The  grossness  of  this  ab- 
surdity refutes  it,  and  proves  that  here,  at  least,  there 
can  be  no  personification.     If  all  the  three,  therefore, 
are  persons,  are  we  to  make  Christian  baptism  a  bap- 
tism in  the  name  of  one  God  and  two  creatures  ?     This 
would  be  too  near  an  approach  to  idolatry,  or  rather,  it 
would  be  idolatry  itself ;  for,  considering  baptism  as  an 
act  of  dedication  to  God,  the  acceptance  of  God  as  our 
God,  on  our  part,  and  the  renunciation  of  all  other  dei- 
ties, and  all  other  religions,  what  could  a  Heathen  con- 
vert conceive  of  the  two  creatures  so  distinguished  from 
all  other  creatures  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  and  so  associa- 
ted with  God  himself  as  to  form  together  the  one  name, 
to  which,  by  that  act,  he  was  devoted,  and  which  he 
was  henceforward  to  profess  and  honor,  but  that  they 
were  equally  Divine  unless  special  care  were  taken  to  in- 
struct him  that  but  one  of  the  three  was  God,  and  the 
two  others  but  creatures  ?     But  of  this  care,  of  this 


44  PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY 

cautionary  instruction,  though  so  obviously  necessaiy 
upon  this  theory,  no  single  instance  can  be  given  in  all 
the  writings  of  the  Apostles." — Watson. 

6.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Most  High,  and  from  rev- 
elation we  learn,  that  the  Most  High  is  Jehovah,  the  in- 
communicable, self-existent,  essence  ;  or  (what  is  exactly 
the  same)  that  Jehovah  only  is  the  Most  High.  Thou, 
whose  name  alone  is  Jehovah,  or^  the  Most  High 
over  all  the  earth  ;  or,  (as  others  render  it)  Thou,  whose 
name  is  Jehovah,  art  alone  the  Most  High  over  all 
the  earth.  Psa.  Ixxxiii.  18.  He  is  called  Jehovah 
Most  High,  in  Psa.  vii.  18,  and  in  other  places :  And, 
in  Psa.  xcii.  8,  Jehovah  the  Most  High  for  evermore. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  this  term  can  only 
be  applied  to  God,  and  be  reciprocated  as  a  name  of  his 
infinite  and  exalted  nature.  If,  then,  it  can  be  applied, 
and  is  applied  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  will  prove  most  de- 
monstrably, and  ought  to  prove  beyond  all  controver- 
sy, that  he  is  truly  God  or  Jehovah,  or  a  person  in  the 
self-existent  essence  so  named. 

In  Psalms  Ixxviii.  17 — 19,  the  Israelites  are  said  to 
have  provoked  the  Most  High.  ''  And  they  sinned  yet 
more  and  more  against  him  by  provoking  the  Most  High 
in  the  wilderness.  And  they  tempted  God  in  their 
heart  by  asking  meat  for  their  lust.  Yea  they  speak 
against  God  ;  they  said  can  God  furnish  a  table  in  the 
wilderness  ?" 

Now,  the  prophet  Isaiah  declares,  that  this  provo- 
cation of  the  Israelites  was  against  the  Holy  Spirit : 
They  rebelled  and  vexed  his  Holy  Spirit.  Isa.  Ixiii.  10. 
The  martyr  Stephen  says,  that  they  resisted  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Acts  viii.  51.  And  the  apostle  to  the  He- 
brews confirms  both,  by  declaring,  that  it  is  the  Holy 
Ghost,  who  saith,  your  fathers  tempted  Me,  pi^oved  Me  ; 
and  saw  my  works  forty  years.     Heb.  iii.  7,  9. 

The  Holy  Spirit,  therefore,  in  these  last  texts,  is  the 
Most  High,  Jehovah,  stated  by  the  Psalmist  in  the  pre- 


OP    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  45 

ceding  text,  and  consequently,  the  true,  Infinite,  self- 
existent,  and  everlasting  God. 

It  may  be  noted,  by  the  way,  that  the  above  passage 
in  the  Hebrews,  were  there  no  other  in  the  Bible  to  as- 
sert the  essential  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  suffi- 
cient of  itself  for  that  purpose ;  for  it  asserts,  that  all 
the  works,  which  were  done  in  the  wilderness,  before  or 
in  behalf  of  the  Israelites,  were  the  glorious  operations 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  They  are  also  ascribed  to  Christ 
as  one  of  the  persons  in  the  essence  ;  and  no  one  will 
deny,  who  believes  in  revelation  at  all,  that  God,  or  the 
Father,  was  undoubtedly  present :  It  follows,  then,  that 
all  was  performed  by  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  and  that  the 
whole  was  carried  on  by  the  power  and  according  to  the 
will  of  the  three  divine  persons  in  the  one  undivided 
essence.  Take  it  in  any  other  view,  and  there  will  be 
different  agents  of  different  natures  in  this  work  of  sal- 
vation, and  consequently  more  Gods  than  one  ;  because 
to  these  different  agents  are  the  names  of  God  ascribed  : 
Or,  there  will  be  only  one  agent  under  different  names, 
and  so,  consequently,  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  with 
the  Father  are  but  one  person,  who  suffered  and  bled, 
who  departed  yet  came  again  as  another  comforter,  yet 
not  another  but  the  same  ;  and  thus  the  Scriptures  will 
be  an  heap  of  contradictions,  as  well  as  blasphemies 
against  the  divine  nature.  The  adversaries,  therefore, 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  who  profess  to 
receive  the  Bible,  have  only  this  refuge  as  adversaries  ; 
either  to  adopt  polytheism  and  so  become  idolaters,  or  to 
plunge  into  the  sink  of  Sabellianism,  and  so  admit  that 
the  Father  was  crucified  and  suffered,  putting  a  lie  into 
Christ's  mouth,  when  he  declared  My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  thou  Forsaken  me.  A  man  must  in  fact  re- 
ject the  Scriptures  altogether,  as  a  divine  revelation,  if 
he  deny  the  doctrine  of  a  trinity,  upon  which,  as  upon 
one  great  and  necessary  foundation,  they  entirely  stand. 

Luke  i.  25.  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee, 
and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee: 


46  PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY 

therefore  also  that  holy  thing ,  which  shall  he  horn  of 
thee,  shall  he  called  the  Son  of  God.  In  the  32d 
verse,  this  Son  of  God  is  called  the  Son  of  the  High- 
est, and,  therefore,  Christ,  as  to  his  human  nature,  is  the 
Son  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  whose  operation  that  human 
nature  was  formed  in  the  virgin's  womb.  Hence  it  ap- 
pears, that  God,  Highest,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  terms 
of  reciprocation,  which  could  not  be  the  case,  unless  the 
Holy  Ghost  were  God  Most  High.  But  being  God 
Most  High,  there  is  no  blasphemy  (as  otherwise  there 
certainly  would  be)  in  ascribing  to  him  all  the  peculiar 
titles  of  the  Godhead :  Let  those  take  care  of  hlasphe- 
my  against  him  (Matt.  xii.  31,)  who  are  bold  enough  to 
ascribe  them  to  any  other. 

John  iii.  5.  Except  a  man  (says  Christ)  he  horn  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  Mng- 
dam  of  God. 

Luke  vi.  35.  But  the  same  Christ  tells  his  disciples, 
that  they  shall  he  the  children  of  the  Highest,  and  (in 
Luke  XX.  36,)  the  children  of  God. 

The  Spirit,  therefore,  is  the  Highest  and  God. 

Upon  the  proof  of  this  important  point,  there  is  an 
end  of  that  controversy,  which  has  employed  so  many 
tongues  and  pens,  respecting  the  proper  ohject  of  wor- 
ship. A  Unitarian,  who  dreams  of  his  inferior  deity, 
(as  some  of  them  do,)  and  all  the  endless  absurdities 
which  arise  from  that  principle,  may  indeed  be  perplex- 
ed himself,  and  may  perplex  others,  upon  this  point ;  but 
the  orthodox  Christian  knows,  that  there  is  one,  and  hut 
one  object  of  worship,  and  that  it  is  abominable  idolatry 
to  pay  adoration  to  more.  He  also  professes,  that,  as 
the  three  divine  persons  are  only  one  essence,  he  cannot 
worship  them  as  separate  or  different  from  that  essence, 
and,  consequently,  that  whether  he  address  himself  to 
each  of  the  three  persons,  or  to  the  three  persons  to- 
gether, his  prayer  or  praise  ascends  to  the  whole  essence, 
which  is  an  undivided  One,  and  his  worship  is  of  "this 
Unity  in  Trinity,  and  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  iA  all  things," 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  47 

and  at  all  times.  He  is,  therefore,  a  worshipper  of  one 
God,  and  indeed  can  worship  no  more,  for  there  is  but 
one. 

7.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Spirit  of  God.  This  is 
evident  from  those  nmiierous  passages  of  Scripture  scat- 
tered through  every  part  of  the  Bible  in  which  he  is  so 
called  ;  but  if  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Spirit  of  God,  then 
he  must  be  God.  To  deny  this  is  to  assume,  either  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  no  more  than  an  attribute,  and,  con- 
sequently, destitute  of  intelligence,  an  ignorant  Holy 
Ghost,  or  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  a  created  being, 
from  which  it  would  follow  that  there  was  a  time  when 
God  had  no  Spirit ;  for  if  the  Spirit  was  created,  there 
must  have  been  a  time  when  it  did  not  exist.  Again,  to 
talk  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  as  a  separate,  inferior,  and  de- 
pendent being,  is  to  assume,  that  God  hath  parts  and 
divisions,  and  that,  so  far  from  having  a  simplicity  of 
nature,  he  is  a  composition  of  superiority  and  inferiority, 
enduring  a  comparison  with  himself,  which  entirely 
takes  away  every  idea  of  his  perfection,  infinitude  and 
eternity.  If  the  Spirit  be  separate  from  God,  or  is  not 
God  himself,  then  the  title  Spirit  of  God,  so  frequently 
given,  is  a  dreadful  mistake  into  which  (it  seems)  God 
himself  hath  led  us  ;  and  the  being  so  called  dwindles 
down  at  once  into  a  mere  minister  of  deity,  an  angel,  or 
some  other  creature.  It  follows  too,  that  something  can 
be  in  the  Godhead,  which  is  not  of  the  Godhead,  and 
that  God's  Spirit,  by  which  he  made  all  things,  may  be 
like  our  breath  and  vanish  into  thin  air.  To  such  ab- 
surdity of  blasphemy  does  some  men's  opinions  neces- 
sarily lead  them,  if  they  are  but  extended  to  their  natu- 
ral length  without  any  straining  or  perversion. 

If  likewise,  the  Spirit  be  inferior  or  dependent,  he  can 
neither  be  infinite  nor  eternal :  which  the  Scriptures  ex- 
pressly declare.  Heb.  ix.  14.  Or,  if  he  be  infinite 
and  eternal,  he  will  be  equal  to  God  himself,  and,  con- 
sequently, must  either  be  God,  which  we  believe ;  or 
there  must  be  two  Gods,  two  eternal  and  infinite  beings, 


48  PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY 

which  we  deny,  and  which  no  man  in  his  senses  can 
maintain.  The  doctrine  of  two  first  principles  is  absurd 
in  reason  ;  and  by  rehgion  we  are  told,  that  the  Lord 
our  God  is  but  one  Lord. 

8.  Another  evidence  of  the  Spirit's  Divinity  is  that 
he  is  God,  which  will  appear  from  the  following  passa- 
ges of  Scripture : 

In  Acts  X.  19,  20,  The  Spirit  said  to  Peter — go — 
I  have  sent  them. 

But,  in  verse  33,  it  is  said,  that  they  were  present 
before  God,  to  hear  all  things  that  were  commanded 
him  of  God. 

The  Spirit,  therefore,  in  one  text,  is  called  God  in  the 
other. 

By  comparing  John  i.  13,  with  James  i.  18,  and  Gal. 
iv.  6,  we  find  that  true  believers  are  called  the  children 
of  God,  and  hence  have  a  right  to  cry,  Abba,  Father. 

But  they  are  also  said,  necessarily  and  indispensably 
to  be  horn  of  the  Spirit,  in  John  iii.  5,  8. 

Consequently,  the  Spirit  must  be  God :  Or,  God's 
children  have  two  spiritual  births,  of  two  different  spir- 
itual beings,  which  is  equally  preposterous  and  unscrip- 
tural. 

Luke  i.  68,  70.  Acts  iii.  18,  21.  The  Lord  God 
of  Israel — spal^e  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets, 
which  have  been  since  the  world  began.  See  also  Heb.  i.  1 . 

2  Pet.  i.  21.  But,  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  Holy  Ghost,  therefore,  is  God,  and  the  Lord  God 
of  Israel. — A  multitude  of  other  Scriptures  may  be 
found  to  confirm  the  major  and  minor  part  of  this  argu- 
ment. 

Justification  of  a  sinner  is  and  must  be  an  act  of  Dei- 
ty alone.  It  is  expressly  said,  it  is  God  that  justifieth  : 
And  again,  that  He  [God]  justifieth  the  ungodly ;  and 
that  this  God  is  one  God,  who  shall  justify  the  circum- 
cision by  faith,  and  uncircumcision  through  faith.  Rom, 
iii.  30,  iv.  5,  viii.  33. 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  49 

But  divine  truth  assures  us,  that  the  Spirit  also  justi- 
fieth.  1  Cor.  vi.  11.  Ye  are  justified— %  the  Spirit 
of  our  God, 

The  Spirit,  therefore,  is  God ;  and  a  person,  neces- 
sarily, in  the  one  God  Jehovah. 

Peter  said  to  Ananias,  IVhy  hath  Satan  filled  thine 
heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost — thou  hast  not  lied  un- 
to men,  hut  unto  God.  Acts  v.  3,  4.  This  Scripture 
contains  a  syllogism  within  itself.  "  Thou  hast  not 
lied  unto  men  but  unto  God  :"  because  thou  hast  lied 
to  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  God.  They,  who  take  this 
Scripture  in  any  other  way,  only  puzzle  themselves  to 
make  the  apostle  speak  nonsense.  Crellius,  and  others, 
have  attempted  to  torture  this  text  to  confess  a  contra- 
diction of  itself;  namely,  that  Ananias,  in  lying  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  did  not  lie  to  God,  but  only  to  his  mes- 
senger, an  emanation,  a  virtue,  a  power,  a  quiddity. 
An  absurdity  not  more  unphilosophical,  than  unscriptu- 
ral  and  unworthy  of  his  high  titles  and  character  !  But, 
if  the  Holy  Ghost  be  not  true  and  very  God,  where  is 
the  particular  horror  and  aggravation  of  Ananias'  crime. 
A  crime  which,  if  committed  only  against  a  creature,  is 
also  committed  against  the  creatures  every  day. 

This  Holy  Spirit  has  dominion  and  power  in  the 
souls  of  men  ;  and,  therefore,  the  grace  of  faith  is 
styled  one  of  his  fruits,  effects  or  operations.  Gal. 
V.  22. 

But  this  very  faith  is,  by  the  same  apostle,  said  to 
be  of  the  operation  of  God.     Col.  ii.  12. 

What,  therefore,  is  the  Spirit,  but  God  ? 

From  the  same  possession  of  power,  the  Spirit  help- 
eth  our  infirmities ;  for  we  Icnow  not  what  we  should 
pray  for  as  we  ought,  &fc.     Rom.  viii.  26. 

But  in  Phil.  ii.  13,  the  apostle  says,  it  is  God  which 
worlceth  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good 
pleasure. 

Consequently  the  Spirit  is  God. 

Upon  the  same  principle  is  this  argument :  Believers 
5 


50  PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY 

are  sealed  by  the  Spirit  to  the  day  of  redemption* 
Eph.  iv.  30. 

But  the  same  apostle,  speaking  in  behalf  of  believ- 
ers, says,  that  God  hath  sealed  us.     2  Cor.  i.  22. 

Therefore,  the  Spirit  is  God. 

Another  operation  of  the  Spirit  is  his  witness  in  the 
soul  by  his  heavenly  grace.  Heb.  x.  15,  The  Holy 
Ghost  is  a  witness  to  us.  John  v.  6.  It  is  the  Spirit 
that  heareth  witness,  because  the  Spirit  is  Truth. 

But,  in  verse  the  9th  of  the  last  mentioned  chapter, 
this  witness  is  called  the  witness  of  God,  which  he  hath 
testified  of  his  Son. 

Therefore,  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  witness 
of  God,  are  one  ;  because  God  and  the  Spirit  are  one. 

God  is  an  unsearchable  being  to  his  creatures  ;  be- 
cause he  is  infinite,  and  they  are  finite  altogether. 
There  can  be  no  measure  without  degrees  of  compari- 
son :  And  the  divine  nature  must  transcend  all  degrees, 
which  infer  more  or  less ;  for  there  cannot  be  more  or 
less,  or  any  expression  of  quantity,  in  a  being  both  un- 
limited and  incomprehensible.  Hence,  it  is  said,  his 
greatness  (or  vastness)  is  unsearchable.     Psa.  cxlv.  3. 

But  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  Things,  yea  the  deep 
things  [the  profound  fullness]  of  God.     1  Cor.  ii.  10. 

Can  any  words,  therefore,  more  strongly  argue,  that 
the  Spirit  is  equal  with  God  ?  And  if  equal,  then  ne- 
cessarily God  himself. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  promised  to  remain  with  the  church 
in  all  ages  of  the  world.  There  is  no  true  ministry  in 
it  but  by  his  ordination  ;  and  no  success  from  that  min- 
istry but  by  his  operation.  Hence  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
said  to  make  overseers  to  feed  the  flock.     Acts  xx.  28. 

But,  in  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  we  read  that  it  is  God,  who 
hath  set  in  the  church  the  various  orders  of  ministers. 

And,  therefore,  it  obviously  concludes,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  God. 

It  is  repeatedly  said,  that  God  raised  Christ  from  the 
dead.     Acts  ii.  24,  et  al.     Very  remarkable  in  Heb. 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  51 

xiii.  20,  21.  The  God  of  Peace,  that  brought  again 
from  the  dead  our  Lord  Jesus,  that  great  Shepherd  of 
the  sheep,  make  you  perfect  in  every  good  work,  work- 
ing IN  you  that  which  is  well  pleasing,  &fc. 

But  it  is  also  said  that  Christ  was  quickened  by  the 
Spirit.  1  Pet.  iii.  18.  And  the  text  in  the  Hebrews 
evidently  relates  to  the  office-character  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

It  will  follow,  then,  that  the  Spirit  is  God  and  the 
God  of  Peace, 

The  Israelites  provoked  the  Lord  God  in  the  wilder- 
ness, proved  him,  and  saw  his  work.  Comp.  Psa.  xcv. 
8,  9,  with  Exod.  xvii.  7,  Numb.  xiv.  22,  et  al. 

But  the  Holy  Ghost  saith — your  fathers  tempted  ME, 
&c.     Heb.  iii.  7,  &:c. 

The  Holy  Ghost,  therefore,  is  Lord  God. 

No  creature  can  possibly  be  an  object  of  worship ; 
and  therefore  no  creature  can  possibly  have  a  temple  for 
the  worship  of  itself.  The  pretence  would  be  impious, 
and  the  service  idolatrous. 

But  believers  are  called  in  several  places,  the  temples 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  temples  of  God,  indiscri- 
minately. There  is  not  the  least  difference  or  distinc- 
tion, or  even  the  remotest  hint  of  a  difference  or  dis- 
tinction made  between  them.  1  Cor.  iii.  16,  2  Cor.  vi. 
16,  he. 

God  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  therefore,  are  essentially 
one  as  w^ell  as  their  temples  ;  and  thus,  distinctly  in 
person,  or  conjunctively  in  essence,  are  the  proper  object 
of  worship  and  adoration. 

There  would  be  no  end  to  the  arguments  which 
might  be  brought  to  prove  this  truth  of  the  Spirit's  di- 
vinity from  his  own  Bible.  Indeed,  as  the  testimony  of 
Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  so  the  testimony  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  power  and  principle  of  all  revelation, 
and  consequently,  as  such,  the  very  life  of  all  the  Scrip- 
tures. Without  Him,  they  never  would  have  existed  ; 
fior,  without  his  continual  agency,  are  they,  more  than 
any  other  book,  a  blessing  in  the  world. 


52  PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY 

It  appears,  then,  from  revelation,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  Lord  and  God ;  that  he  is  a  divine  Person,  and  not 
a  mere  unconscious  instrument,  or  created  quality ; 
and  that,  accordingly.  He  has  ascriptions  which  can 
belong  only  to  a  person  in  the  Godhead  who  sees,  who 
knows,  and  who  orders  all  things.  We  will  conclude 
this  point  of  the  Spirifs  proper  divinity  by  an  argu- 
ment of  a  mixed  nature,  founded  indeed,  as  to  its  datum, 
upon  divine  revelation^  like  all  other  spiritual  truth  :  but 
more  combined  with  human  reason,  which  some  people 
pretend  to  exalt  against  the  wisdom  of  God,  but  which 
"  purged  from  its  film,"  becomes  its  dutiful  servant  and 
^\dlling  advocate  against  the  daring  pretences  of  unrea- 
sonable men. 

God  alone  is  the  Creator  of  all  things.  This  is  a 
maxim  which  revelation  has  fully  declared,  and  to 
which  the  lowest  degree  of  reason  must  yield  a  ready 
assent.  All  the  men,  who  have  ever  lived  upon  the 
earth,  were  never  able  to  produce  a  new  thing  upon  it, 
or  to  give  life  where  it  has  once  been  taken  away.  The 
intellect  of  man  can  only  rise  to  a  discovery,  more  or 
less,  of  what  exists  ;  and  all  his  power  is  exercised  only 
upon  the  matter  and  forms  about  him,  to  which  he  can 
add  nothing  of  his  own,  nor  from  which  diminish  aught 
by  a  reduction  to  nothing.  This  rule  must  hold  with  all 
ranks  of  being,  except  the  Supreme.  But  we  are  in- 
formed, by  the  unerring  wisdom  of  the  I\Iost  High,  that 
the  Spirit,  of  whom  we  are  treating,  has  made,  has 
fashioned,  does  give  life  and  being  to  the  heavens,  to  the 
earth,  and  to  men.  This  Spirit,  therefore,  is  not,  cannot 
be  made  himself:  And  if  he  be  not  a  creature,  he  must 
be  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Godhead  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  the  Son;  and,  being  of  the  same  substance, 
has  a  right  to  the  title  of  Creator,  with  them  in  the  uni- 
ty of  that  substance.  Now,  as  whatever  is  not  God, 
must  necessarily  be  a  creature  ;  so  whatever  is  not  a  crea- 
ture, that  must  be  God.  If  the  Spirit,  therefore,  be  not 
of  the  same  substance  with  the  GodJiead,  he  is  unavoid- 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  53 

ably  a  created  substance  :  And  if  He  be  a  created  sub- 
stance, then  nothing  ever  was,  or  ever  could  be  created 
by  Him.  But  the  word  of  the  living  God  says  positive- 
ly, that  the  heavens,  and  the  earth,  and  man  in  particu- 
lar, were  created  by  him  :  And,  therefore,  it  will  follow, 
upon  the  united  assent  of  revelation  and  reason,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  Creator,  is  of  one  substance  or  essence 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  consequently  is  with 
them,  God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever. 

Could  it  be  admitted  for  a  moment,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  not  very  God,  nor  a  proper  object  of  worship  ; 
then  the  Christian  church  in  all  ages  has  been  guilty 
of  the  most  profane  and  abominable  idolatry,  and  the 
hosts  of  heaven  sing,  Holy,  Holy,  Holy,  for  nought ; 
and  (with  horror  be  it  spoken)  God  himself  has  failed 
in  the  performance  of  his  promise,  that  his  people  should 
be  led  and  guided  into  all  Truth,  and  that  against  his 
church  the  gates  of  hell  should  never  prevail.  But,  if 
it  be  impossible,  that  God  should  have  so  left  his  church, 
or  that  his  faithfulness  and  truth  should  thus  have  failed  ; 
it  will  follow,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  been  rightly  the 
object  of  their  constant  adoration,  and  that  He  himself 
has  inspired  them  with  his  grace  to  render  to  him  this 
tribute  of  their  praise. 

"  As  a  Divine  Person,  our  regards  are,  therefore, 
justly  due  to  him  as  the  object  of  worship  and  trust,  of 
prayer  and  blessing  ;  duties  to  which  we  are  specially 
called,  both  by  the  general  consideration  of  his  Divini- 
ty, and  by  that  affectingly  benevolent  and  attractive 
character  under  which  he  is  presented  to  us  in  the  whole 
Scriptures.  In  creation  we  see  him  moving  upon  the 
face  of  chaos,  and  reducing  it  to  a  beautiful  order ;  in 
providence,  '  renewing  the  face  of  the  earth,'  '  garnish- 
ing the  heavens,'  and  '  giving  life'  to  man.  In  grace 
we  behold  him  expanding  the  prophetic  scene  to  the 
vision  of  the  seers  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  making 
a  perfect  revelation  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  to  the 
Apostles  of  the  New.  He  ^  reproves  the  world  of  sin/ 
5* 


54  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

and  works  secret  conviction  of  its  evil  and  danger  in  the 
heart.  He  is  '  the  Spirit  of  grace  and  supphcation  ;' 
the  softened  heart,  the  yielding  will,  all  heavenly  desires 
and  tendencies  are  from  him.  He  hastens  to  the  trou- 
bled spirits  of  penitent  men,  who  are  led  by  his  influence 
to  Christ,  and  in  whose  hearts  he  has  wrought  faith, 
with  the  news  of  pardon,  and  'bears  witness'  of  their 
sonship  '  with  their  spirit.'  He  aids  their  '  infinnities  ;' 
makes  '  intercession  for  them ;'  inspires  thoughts  of  con- 
solation and  feelings  of  peace ;  plants  and  perfects  in 
them  whatsoever  things  are  pure,  and  lovely,  and  hon- 
est, and  of  good  report ;  delights  in  his  own  work  in  the 
renewed  heart ;  dwells  in  the  soul  as  in  a  temple  ;  and, 
after  having  rendered  the  spirit  to  God,  without  spot  or 
wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing,  sanctified  and  meet  for  hea- 
ven, finishes  his  benevolent  and  glorious  work  by  rais- 
ing the  bodies  of  saints  in  immortal  life  at  the  last  day. 
So  powerfully  does  '  the  Spirit  of  glory  and  of  God' 
claim  our  love,  our  praise,  and  our  obedience  !  In  the 
forms  of  the  churches  of  Christ,  in  all  ages,  he  has, 
therefore,  been  associated  with  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
in  equal  glory  and  blessing ;  and  where  such  forms  are 
not  in  use,  this  distinct  recognition  of  the  Spirit,  so  much 
in  danger  of  being  neglected,  ought,  by  ministers,  to  be 
most  carefully  and  constantly  made,  in  every  gratulatory 
act  of  devotion,  that  so  equally  to  each  Person  of  the 
Eternal  Trinity  glory  may  be  given  '  in  the  church 
throughout  all  ages.     Amen.'  " 


CHAPTER  IV. 


ON    THE    DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

Having  in  the  preceding  argument  established  the 
Personality  and  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  shall 
endeavor  in  this  to  prove  the  Supreme  Divinity  of  Je- 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  55 

sus  Christ ;  and  if  we  succeed  in  this,  then  it  will  ne- 
cessarily follow  either  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity- 
is  true  or  that  there  is  a  plurality  of  Gods,  which  is  con- 
trary to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture  ;  for  it  is  most 
expressly  declared  that  there  is  but  one  God.  On  this 
point,  the  testimony  of  Scripture  is  express  and  unequi- 
vocal, "The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord,"  Deut.  vi.  4, 
"Th^  Lord  he  is  God,  there  is  none  else  besides  him," 
Deut.  iv.  35,  "  Thou  art  God  a/one,"  Psalms  Ixxxvi. 
10,  "  We  know  that  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world,  and 
there  is  none  other  God  but  one,"  1  Cor.  viii.  4,  "  I  am 
the  Lord,  there  is  none  else,  there  is  no  God  besides 
me,"  Isah.  xlv.  5,  "  And  thou  shalt  know  no  God  but 
me  :  for  there  is  no  Saviour  besides  me,"  Hosea  xiii.  4, 
"  Hear,  O  Israel ;  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord," 
Mark  xii.  29,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  the  king  of  Israel, 
and  his  Redeemer  the  Lord  of  hosts,  I  am  the  first,  and 
I  am  the  last,  and  besides  me  there  is  no  God,"  Isah. 
xliv.  6.  These  declarations  of  sacred  writers  establish 
the  position  that  there  is  but  one  God  beyond  the  possibili- 
ty of  contradiction.  This  point  we  wish  the  reader  dis- 
tinctly to  bear  in  mind  :  for  it  is  the  foundation  and  the 
key  stone  to  the  whole  fabric  of  scriptural  theology  ; 
and  every  argument  in  favor  of  the  Trinity  flows  from 
this  principle  of  absolute  unity  in  God — a  principle 
which  Unitarians  fancy  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  or- 
thodox doctrine. 

With  this  important  point,  that  there  is  but  one  God, 
fixed  in  our  minds,  we  shall  now  pass  to  examine  the  va- 
rious arguments  which  will  be  brought  forward  to  prove 
the  essential  Divinity  of  Christ. 

The  first  argument  which  we  shall  advance  in  sup- 
port of  this  important  point,  will  be  founded  upon  his 
pre-existence.     And, 

1.  The  pre-existence  of  our  Saviour  is  clearly  exhi- 
bited in  the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist.  John  i.  15, 
"  He  that  cometh  after  me  is  preferred  before  me,  for  he 
was  before  me ;"  or,  as  it  is  in  the  30th  verse,  "  After 


56  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

me  Cometh  a  man  which  is  preferred  before  me,  for  he 
was  before  me."  Now  if  he  was  before  John  the  Bap- 
tist, as  these  passages  plainly  show,  he  must  have  exist- 
ed before  him.  And  if  he  existed  before  him,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  he  existed  before  his  incarnation  :  for  the  birth 
of  John  was  prior  to  that  of  Jesus  Christ. 

2.  He  came  down  from  heaven ;  consequently  must 
have  existed  in  heaven  before  his  incarnation.  St. 
John  iii.  13,  "  No  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven, 
but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  son  of 
man  which  is  in  heaven."  He  also  styles  himself  ''  the 
bread  of  life  which  came  down  from  heaven." 

3.  He  came  from  God,  John  xiii.  3,  "  Jesus  know- 
ino-  that  the  Father  had  given  all  things  into  his  hands, 
and  that  he  was  come  from  God,  and  went  to  God." 
But  if  he  come  from  God,  he  must  have  existed  with 
him  before  he  came  from  him,  and  therefore  must  have 
had  an  existence  before  his  advent  into  this  world. 

4.  "  He  was  made  flesh,"  John  i.  14.  "  As  the  chil- 
dren are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself 
likewise  took  part  of  the  same."  "  For  verily,  he  took 
not  on  him  the  nature  of  Angels  ;  but  he  took  on  him 
the  seed  of  Abraham,"  Heb.  xi.  14,  16.  These  ex- 
pressions plainly  involve  the  idea  of  the  pre-existence  of 
Christ,  who  was  made  flesh,  or,  as  the  Apostle  express- 
es it,  "  who  took  upon  himself  flesh  and  blood." 

5.  When  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world,  he  came 
voluntarily.  "  When  he  cometh  into  the  world,  he  saith 
sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldst  not,  but  a  body  hast 
thou  prepared  for  me ;  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  O 
God,"  Heb.  x.  5,  7.  But  if  he  came  into  the  world, 
and  took  upon  him  a  body,  he  must  have  existed  before 
he  came  and  took  his  body. 

6.  He  existed  before  Abraham.  John  viii.  5,  "  Be- 
fore Abraham  was  I  am."  The  obvious  sense  of  this 
passage  is,  as  Mr.  Watson  remarks,  "  Before  Abraham 
was,  or  was  bom,  I  was  in  existence."  Abraham,  the 
patriarch,  was  the  person  spoken  of:  for  the  Jews  hav- 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  57 

ing  said,  '^  Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years  old,  and  hast 
thou  seen  Abraham  our  Lord,"  declares,  with  his  pecu- 
liarly solemn  mode  of  introduction,  "  Verily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  you.  Before  Abraham  was  I  am."  I  had 
priority  of  existence,  together  with  a  continuation  of  it 
to  the  end  of  time.  Nor  did  the  Jews  mistake  his  mean- 
ing ;  but  being  filled  with  indignation  at  so  manifest  a 
claim  of  Divinity,  "  they  took  up  stones  to  stone  him." 
We  must  therefore  conclude  that  our  Saviour  existed  not 
only  before  John  the  Baptist,  but  also  before  the  patri- 
arch Abraham  ;  and  consequently,  that  he  did  exist  at 
least  two  thousand  years  before  he  was  born. 

7.  He  created  all  things.  John  i.  3,  "  All  things 
were  made  by  him  ;  and  without  him  was  not  any  thing. 
made  that  was  made."  Again:  Col.  i.  15,  16,  17, 
'*  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first  bom 
of  every  creature  :  for  by  him  were  all  things  created, 
that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  in- 
visible, whether  they  be  thrones  or  dominions,  or  princi- 
palities or  powers  :  all  things  were  created  by  him  and 
for  him,  and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things 
consist."  But  if  he  was  before  all  things,  and  if  all 
things  were  created  by  him,  it  is  evident  that  he  did  ex- 
ist before  the  creation,  consequently  before  his  incarna- 
tion, which  did  not  take  place  until  four  thousand  years 
after  the  creation. 

8.  The  last  passage  which  I  shall  quote,  may  proper- 
ly, both  from  its  dignity  and  explicitness,  close  the 
whole.  John  xvii.  5,  "  And  now,  O  Father,  glorify 
thou  me  with  thine  ownself,  with  the  glory  ivhich  I  had 
with  thee  before  the  ivorld  was^  On  this  passage,  Mr. 
Watson  very  appropriately  remarks,  "  Whatever  this 
glory  was,  it  was  possessed  by  Christ  before  the  world 
was,  or  as  he  afterwards  expressed  it,  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world.  That  question  is  therefore  not  to 
be  confounded  with  the  main  point  which  determines  the 
pre-existence  of  our  Lord :  for  if  he  was  with  the  Fa- 
ther, and  had  a  glory  with  him  before  the  world  was, 


58  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

and  of  which  he  emptied  himself  when  he  became  man, 
then  he  had  an  existence,  not  only  before  his  incarna- 
tion, but  before  the  very  foundation  of  the  world." 
So  conclusive  is  this  passage  in  proving  the  pre-exist- 
ence  of  Christ,  that  as  Dr.  Harwood  says,  "  Were  there 
no  other  intimation  in  the  whole  New  Testament  of  the 
pre-existence  of  Christ,  this  single  passage  would  irrefra- 
gibly  demonstrate  and  establish  it.  Our  Saviour,  here  in 
a  solemn  act  of  devotion,  declares  to  the  Almighty  that 
he  had  a  glory  with  him  before  the  world  was,  and  fer- 
vently supplicates  that  he  would  be  graciously  pleased 
to  reinstate  him  in  his  former  felicity.  The  language  is 
plain  and  clear.  Every  word  has  great  moment  and 
emphasis  : — Glorify  thou  me  ivith  that  glory  which  I 
enjoyed  in  thy  presence  before  the  world  was.  Upon 
this  single  text  I  lay  my  finger.  Here  I  posit  my  sys- 
tem. And  if  plain  words  be  designedly  employed  to 
convey  any  determinate  meaning ;  if  the  modes  of  hu- 
man speech  have  any  precision,  I  am  convinced,  that 
this  plain  declaration  of  our  Lord,  in  an  act  of  devotion, 
exhibits  a  great  and  important  truth,  which  can  never  be 
subverted  or  invalidated  by  any  accurate  and  satisfacto- 
ry evidence." 

Having,  therefore,  proven,  in  opposition  to  the  So- 
cinian  hypothesis,  from  the  plainest  possible  testimony  ; 
testimony  which  no  criticism,  and  no  unlicensed  com- 
ment, has  been  able  to  shake  or  obscure,  that  our  Sa- 
viour had  an  existence  before  his  incarnation,  and  even 
before  the  "  foundation  of  the  world,"  in  conclusion  we 
would  remark,  that  if  Jesus  Christ  did  exist  previous  to 
his  incarnation,  if  he  possessed  any  nature  before  his 
advent  into  this  world,  it  must  have  been  either  a  human 
angelic  or  Divine  nature.  That  it  was  not  a  human  na- 
ture, is  evident  from  the  fact  that  no  one  can  believe  in 
the  pre-existence  of  human  souls.  That  it  was  not  an 
angelic  nature,  is  also  clear  from  Heb.  ii.  16,  "For 
verily  he  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels ;  but  he 
took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham."     Also,  from  Heb. 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  59 

i.  4,  5,  "  Being  made  so  much  better  than  the  angels, 
as  he  hath  obtained  a  more  excellent  name  than  they. 
For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time  thou 
art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee  ?"  If,  then, 
he  had  a  more  excellent  name,  and  was  made  better 
than  any  of  the  angels,  and  if  he  took  not  upon  him 
tlieir  nature,  it  is  clear  that  he  was  not  one  of  them  ; 
and  if,  in  his  pre-existent  state,  he  possessed  neither  a 
human  nor  angelic  nature,  it  is  evident  that  he  must 
have  been  a  Divine  Being. 

11.  Christ  is  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
God  worshiped  by  the  Jews,  Jer.  iii.  31,  32.  "  Behold 
the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new 
Covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  and  with  the  house 
of  Judah  ;  not  according  to  the  Covenant  that  I  made 
w^ith  their  fathers  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the 
hand  to  bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt."  The 
Jehovah  who  led  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt  and  gave 
them  their  law,  is  here  plainly  introduced  as  the  author 
of  the  new  Covenant.  This  new  Covenant,  according 
to  the  argument  of  the  Apostle  Paul  in  the  8th  chapter 
of  Hebrews,  is  the  Gospel  dispensation,  of  which  Christ 
is  evidently  the  author ;  consequently  he  must  be  the 
Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  God  of  the  Jewish 
people,  who  led  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  gave 
them  their  law,  amid  the  most  awful  displays  of  Divine 
Majesty  on  the  trembling  summit  of  Sinai,  where,  as 
well  as  in  after  ages,  he  received  the  worship  of  the 
children  of  Israel ;  for,*according  to  the  above  passage, 
the  same  person  is  author  of  both  the  Old  and  New 
Covenant. 

The  same  doctrine  is  taught,  with  equal  clearness,  in 
that  celebrated  prediction  recorded  in  Malachi  iii.  1. 

"  Behold,  I  will  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall 
prepare  my  way  before  me ;  and  the  Lord  whom  ye 
seek  shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple,  even  the  mes- 
senger of  the  covenant  whom  ye  delight  in  ;  behold  he 
shall  come,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts." 


60  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

"  The  characters  under  which  the  person  who  Is  the 
subject  of  this  prophecy  is  described,  are,  the  Lord,  a 
sovereign  mler,  the  owner  of  the  temple,  and  therefore 
a  Divine  prince  or  governor,  he  'shall  come  to  his  tem- 
jple,'  '  The  temple,'  says  Bishop  Horsley,  *in  the  wri- 
tings of  a  Jewish  prophet,  cannot  be  otherwise  under- 
stood, according  to  the  literal  meaning,  than  of  the  tem- 
ple at  Jerusalem.  Of  this  temple,  therefore,  the  person 
to  come  is  expressly  called  the  Lord.  The  lord  of  any 
temple,  in  the  language  of  all  writers,  and  in  the  natu- 
ral meaning  of  the  phrase,  is  the  divinity  to  whose  wor- 
ship it  is  consecrated.  To  no  other  divinity  was  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem  consecrated,  than  the  true  and 
everlasting  God,  the  Lord  Jehovah,  the  Maker  of  heav- 
en and  earth.  Here,  then,  we  have  the  express  testi- 
mony of  Malachi,  that  the  Christ,  the  Deliverer,  whose 
coming  he  announces,  was  no  other  than  the  Jehovah 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Jehovah  had  delivered  the 
Israelites  from  the  Egyptian  bondage ;  and  the  same 
Jehovah  was  to  come  in  person  to  his  temple,  to  effect 
the  greater  and  more  general  deliverance  of  which  the 
former  was  but  an  imperfect  type.' 

"  Now,  this  prophecy  is  expressly  applied  to  Christ 
by  St.  Mark.  '  The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  as  it  is  written,  Behold  I  send 
my  messenger  before  thy  face,  which  shall  prepare  thy 
way  before  thee.'  It  follows  from  this,  that  Jesus  is  the 
Lord,  the  Lord  of  the  Temple,  the  Messenger  of  the 
Covenant  mentioned  in  the  prophecy;  and  bearing  these 
exact  characters  of  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament, 
who  was  the  King  of  the  Jews  ;  whose  temple  was  his, 
because  he  resided  in  it,  and  so  was  called  'the  house  of 
the  Lord  ;'  and  who  was  '  the  Messenger^  of  the  Cove- 
nant ;  the  identity  of  the  person  cannot  be  mistaken. 
One  coincidence  is  singularly  striking.  Jehovah  had 
his  residence  in  the  Jewish  tabernacle  and  temple,  and 
took  possession,  or  came  suddenly  to  both,  at  their  ded- 
ication, and  filled  them  with  his  glory.  On  one  occasion, 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  61 

Jesus  himself,  though  in  a  state  of  humiUationj  comes  in 
pubUc  procession  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  calls 
it  '  his  own  ;'  thus  at  once  declaring  that  he  was  the 
ancient  and  rightful  Lord  of  the  Temple,  and  appropri- 
ating to  himself  this  eminent  prophecy.  Bishop  Hors- 
ley  has  introduced  this  circumstance  m  his  usual  stri- 
king and  convincing  manner. 

"  '  A  third  time  Jesus  came  still  more  remarkably  as 
the  Lord  to  his  temple,  when  he  came  up  from  Galilee 
to  celebrate  the  last  passover,  and  made  that  public  en- 
try at  Jerusalem  which  is  described  by  all  the  Evange- 
lists. It  will  be  necessary  to  enlarge  upon  the  particu- 
lars of  this  interesting  story :  for  the  right  understand- 
ing of  our  Saviour's  conduct  upon  this  occasion  depends 
so  much  upon  seeing  certain  leading  circumstances  in  a 
proper  light, — upon  a  recollection  of  ancient  prophe- 
cies, and  an  attention  to  the  customs  of  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple,— that  I  am  apt  to  suspect,  few  now-a-days  discern 
in  this  extraordinary  transaction  what  was  clearly  seen 
in  it  at  the  time  by  our  Lord's  disciples,  and  in  some 
measure  understood  by  his  enemies.  I  shall  present 
you  with  an  orderly  detail  of  the  story,  and  comment 
upon  the  particulars  as  they  arise  :  and  I  doubt  not  but 
that  by  God's  assistance  I  shall  teach  you  to  perceive 
in  this  public  entry  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  (if  you  have 
not  perceived  it  before,)  a  conspicuous  advent  of  the 
great  Jehovah  into  his  temple.  Jesus,  on  his  last  jour- 
ney from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  stops  at  the  foot  of 
Mount  Olivet,  and  sends  two  of  his  disciples  to  a  neigh- 
boring village  to  provide  an  ass's  colt  to  convey  him 
from  that  place  to  the  city,  distant  not  more  than  half 
a  mile.  The  colt  is  brought,  and  Jesus  is  seated  upon 
it.  This  first  circumstance  must  be  well  considered  ;  it 
is  the  key  to  the  whole  mystery  of  the  story.  What 
could  be  his  meaning  in  choosing  this  singular  convey- 
ance ?  It  could  not  be  that  the  fatigue  of  the  short 
journey  which  remained  was  likely  to  be  too  much  for 
him  on  foot ;  and  that  no  better  animal  was  to  be  procu- 
6 


62  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

red.  Nor  was  the  ass  in  these  days  (though  It  had  been 
in  earlier  ages)  an  animal  in  high  esteem  in  the  East, 
used  for  traveling  or  for  state  by  persons  of  the  first 
condition, — that  this  conveyance  should  be  chosen  for 
the  grandeur  or  propriety  of  the  appearance.  Strange 
as  it  may  seem,  the  coming  to  Jerusalem  upon  an  ass's 
colt  was  one  of  the  prophetical  characters  of  the  Mes- 
siah ;  and  the  great  singularity  of  it  had  perhaps  been 
the  reason  that  this  character  had  been  more  generally 
attended  to  than  any  other ;  so  that  there  was  no  Jew 
who  was  not  apprised  that  the  Messiah  was  to  come  to 
the  holy  city  in  that  manner.  '  Rejoice  greatly,  O 
daughter  of  Zion !  shout,  O  daughter  of  Jerusalem !' 
saith  Zechariah  ;  '  Behold  thy  King  cometh  unto  thee  ! 
He  is  just,  and  having  salvation  ;  lowly,  and  riding  up- 
on an  ass,  even  a  colt,  the  foal  of  an  ass  1'  And  this 
prophecy  the  Jews  never  understood  of  any  other  per- 
son than  the  Messiah.  Jesus,  therefore,  by  seating 
himself  upon  the  ass's  colt  in  order  to  go  to  Jerusalem, 
without  any  possible  inducement  either  of  grandeur  or 
convenience,  openly  declared  himself  to  be  that  King 
who  was  to  come,  and  at  whose  coming  in  that  manner 
Zion  was  to  rejoice.  And  so  the  disciples,  if  we  may 
judge  from  what  immediately  followed,  understood  this 
proceeding  ;  for  no  sooner  did  they  see  then*  master  seat- 
ed on  the  colt,  than  they  broke  out  into  transports  of 
the  highest  joy,  as  if  in  this  great  sight  they  had  the  full 
contentment  of  their  utmost  wishes  ;  conceiving,  as  it 
should  seem,  the  sanguine  hope  that  the  kingdom  was 
this  instant  to  be  restored  to  Israel.  They  strewed  the 
way  which  Jesus  was  to  pass  with  the  green  branches 
of  the  trees  which  grew  beside  it ;  a  mark  of  honor,  in 
the  East,  never  paid  but  to  the  greatest  emperors  on  oc- 
casions of  the  highest  pomp.  They  proclaimed  him 
the  long  expected  heir  of  David's  throne, — the  Blessed 
One  coming  in  the  name  of  the  Lord ;  that  is,  in  the 
language  of  Malachi,  the  Messenger  of  the  Covenant : 
and  they  rent  the  skies  with  the  exulting  acclamation 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  63 

of  ^  Hosanna  in  the  highest !'  On  their  way  to  Jerusa- 
lem, they  are  met  by  a  great  mukitude  from  the  city, 
whom  the  tidings  had  no  sooner  reached  than  they  ran 
out  in  eager  joy  to  join  his  triumph.  When  they  reach- 
ed Jerusalem,  '  the  whole  city,'  says  the  blessed  Evan- 
gelist, '  was  moved.'  Here  recollect,  that  it  w  as  now 
the  season  of  the  passover.  The  passover  was  the  high- 
est festival  of  the  Jewish  nation,  the  anniversary  of  that 
memorable  night  when  Jehovah  led  his  armies  out  of 
Egypt  with  a  high  hand  and  an  extended  arm, — ^  a 
night  much  to  be  remembered  to  the  Lord  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  in  their  generations  ;'  and  much  indeed  it 
was  remembered.  The  devout  Jews  flocked  at  this  sea- 
son to  Jerusalem,  not  only  from  every  corner  of  Judea, 
but  from  the  remotest  countries  whither  God  had  scatter- 
ed them ;  and  the  numbers  of  the  strangers  that  were 
annually  collected  in  Jerusalem  during  this  festival  are 
beyond  imagination.  These  strangers,  who  living  at  a 
distance  knew  little  of  what  had  been  passing  in  Judea 
since  their  last  visit,  were  they  who  were  moved  (as  well 
they  might  be)  with  wonder  and  astonishment,  when 
Jesus,  so  humble  in  his  equipage,  so  honored  in  his  nu- 
merous attendants,  appeared  within  the  city  gates  ;  and 
every  one  asks  his  neighbor,  *  Who  is  this  ?'  It  was  re- 
plied by  some  of  the  natives  of  Judea,- — ^but,  as  I  con- 
ceive, by  none  of  the  disciples  ;  for  any  of  them  at  this 
time  would  have  given  another  answer, — it  was  replied, 
'  This  is  the  Nazarene,  the  great  prophet  from  Galilee.* 
Through  the  throng  of  these  astonished  spectators  the 
procession  passed  by  the  public  streets  of  Jerusalem  to 
the  temple,  where  immediately  the  sacred  porticoes  re- 
sound with  the  continued  hosannas  of  the  multitudes. 
The  chief  priests  and  scribes  are  astonished  and  alarm- 
ed :  they  request  Jesus  himself  to  silence  his  followers. 
Jesus,  in  the  early  part  of  his  ministry,  had  always 
been  cautious  of  any  public  display  of  personal  conse- 
quence ;  lest  the  malice  of  his  enemies  should  be  too 
soon   provoked,  or  the  unadvised   zeal  of  his  friends 


64  DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST. 

should  raise  civil  commotions.  But  now  that  his  work 
on  earth  was  finished  in  all  but  the  last  painful  part  of 
it, — ^now  that  he  had  firmly  laid  the  foundations  of  God's 
kmgdom  in  the  hearts  of  his  disciples, — now  that  the 
Apostles  were  prepared  and  instructed  for  their  office, 
— ^now  that  the  days  of  vengeance  on  the  Jewish  nation 
Were  at  hand,  and  it  mattered  not  how  soon  they  should 
incur  the  displeasure  of  the  Romans  their  masters, — 
Jesus  lays  aside  a  reserve  which  could  be  no  longer  use- 
ful ;  and,  instead  of  checking  the  zeal  of  his  followers, 
he  gives  a  new  alarm  to  the  chief  priests  and  scribes,  by 
a  direct  and  firm  assertion  of  his  right  to  the  honors  that 
were  so  largely  shown  to  him.  '  If  these,'  says  he, 
'  were  silent,  the  stones  of  this  building  would  be  endu- 
ed with  a  voice  to  proclaim  my  titles :'  and  then,  as  on 
a  former  occasion,  he  drove  out  the  traders  ;  but  with  a 
higher  tone  of  authority,  calling  it  his  own  house,  and 
saying,  '  My  house  is  the  house  of  prayer,  but  ye  have 
made  it  a  den  of  thieves.'  You  have  now  the  story, 
in  all  its  circumstances,  faithfully  collected  from  the  four 
Evangelists  ;  nothing  exaggerated,  but  set  in  order,  and 
perhaps  somewhat  illustrated  by  an  application  of  old 
prophecies,  and  recollection  of  Jewish  customs.  Judge 
for  yourselves  whether  this  was  not  an  advent  of  the 
Lord  Jehovah  taking  personal  possession  of  his  tem- 
ple.' " 

The  next  passage  to  which  we  shall  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  reader,  in  order  to  prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  Isaiah  xl.  3. 

"  '  The  voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the  wilderness, 
Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  (Jehovah,)  make 
straight  in  the  desert  a  highway  for  our  God.  Every 
valley  shall  be  exalted,  and  every  mountain  shall  be 
made  low  ;  and  the  crooked  shall  be  made  straight,  and 
the  rough  places  plain,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  (Je- 
hovah) shall  be  revealed,  and  all  flesh  shall  see  it  to- 
gether.' This  being  spoken  of  him  of  whom  John  the 
Baptist  was  to  be  the  forerunner ;  and  the  applicatioo 


DIVINITY  OF    CHRIST.  65 

having  been  afterward  expressly  made  by  the  Baptist  to 
our  Lord,  it  is  evident  that  he  is  the  person  '  to  whom 
the  prophet  attributes  the  incommunicable  name  of  Je- 
hovah, and  styles  him  ^  our  God.' ' 

'*  There  are,  however,  a  few  passages  which,  in  a  still 
more  distinct  manner  than  any  which  have  been  intro- 
duced, except  that  from  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  iden- 
tify Jesus  Christ  with  the  Jehovah  in  the  Patriarchal  and 
Levitical  dispensations  ;  and  a  brief  consideration  of 
them  will  leave  this  important  point  completely  estab- 
lished. 

^'  Let  it  then  be  recollected,  that  he  who  dwelt  in  the 
Jewish  tabernacle,  between  the  Cherubims,  was  Jeho- 
vah. In  Psalm  Ixviii,  which  was  written  on  the  remo- 
val of  the  ark  to  Mount  Zion,  he  is  expressly  addressed. 
^  This  is  the  hill  which  God  desireth  to  dwell  in  ;'  and 
again,  '  They  have  seen  thy  goings,  O  God,  my  King, 
in  thy  sanctuary.'  But  the  Apostle  Paul,  Eph.  iv.  8, 
applies  this  Psalm  to  Christ,  and  considers  this  very 
ascent  of  Jehovah  to  Mount  Zion  as  a  prophetic  type 
of  the  ascent  of  Jesus  to  the  celestial  Zion.  '  Where- 
fore he  saith,  when  he  ascended  on  high  he  led  captivi- 
ty captive,'  &ic.  The  conclusion,  therefore,  is,  that  the 
Jehovah  who  is  addressed  in  the  Psalm,  and  Christ,  are 
the  same  person.  This  is  marked  with  equal  strength 
in  verse  29.  The  Psalm,  let  it  be  observed,  is  deter- 
mined by  apostolical  authority  to  be  a  prophecy  of 
Christ,  as  indeed  its  terms  intimate  ;  and  with  reference 
to  the  future  conquests  of  Messiah,  the  prophet  ex- 
claims, '  Because  of  thy  temple  at  Jerusalem  shall  kings 
bring  presents  unto  thee.'  The  future  Christ  is  spoken 
of  as  one  having  then  a  temple  at  Jerusalem. 

"  It  was  the  glory  of  Jehovah  the  resident  God  of 
the  Temple,  which  Isaiah  saw  in  the  vision  recorded  in 
the  6th  chapter  of  his  prophecy ;  but  the  Evangelist 
John  expressly  declares,  that  on  that  occasion  the  pro- 
phet saw  the  glory  of  Christ  and  spake  of  him.  John 
6^ 


66  ©IVINITY  OF    CHRIST. 

xll.  37 — 41.     Christ  therefore  was  the  Lord  of  Hosts 
whose  glory  filled  the  Temple. 

''  St.  Peter  calls  the  Sphit  of  Jehovah,  by  which  the 
prophets  'prophesied  of  the  grace  that  should  come,  the 
Spuit  of  Christ  J  He  also  informs  us  that  '  Christ  was 
put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit, 
by  which  also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in 
prison,  which  some  time  were  disobedient  when  once 
the  long  suffering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noah, 
while  the  ark  was  preparing.'  Now,  whatever  may  be 
the  full  meaning  of  this  difficult  passage,  Christ  is  clear- 
ly represented  as  preaching  by  his  Spirit  in  the  days  of 
Noah  ;  that  is,  inspiring  Noah  to  preach.  Let  this  be 
collated  with  the  declaration  of  Jehovah  before  the  flood, 
'My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with  man,  for  that 
he  is  flesh,  yet  his  days  shall  be  a  hundred  and  twenty 
years,'  during  which  period  of  delay  and  long-suffering, 
Noah  was  made  by  him,  from  whom  alone  inspiration  can 
come,  a  preacher  of  righteousness  ;  and  it  is  clear,  that 
Christ  and  the  Jehovah  of  the  antediluvian  world,  are 
supposed  by  St.  Peter  to  have  been  the  same  person. 
In  the  11th  chapter  of  the  Hebrews,  Moses  is  said  to 
have  esteemed  the  reproach  of  Christ,  greater  riches 
than  the  treasures  of  Egypt ;  a  passage  of  easy  inter- 
pretation, when  it  is  admitted  that  the  Jehovah  of  the 
Israelites,  whose  name  and  worship  Moses  professed,  and 
Christ,  were  the  same  person.  For  this  worship  he 
was  reproached  by  the  Egyptians,  who  preferred  their 
own  idolatry,  and  treated,  as  all  apostates  do,  the  true 
religion,  the  pure  worship  of  former  ages  from  which 
they  had  departed,  with  contempt.  To  be  reproached 
for  the  sake  of  Jehovah,  and  to  be  reproached  for  Christ, 
were  convertible  phrases  with  the  Apostle,  because  he 
considered  Jehovah  and  Christ  to  be  the  same  person. 
.  "  '  In  St.  Paul's  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  we 
read,  *  Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of  them 
(that  is,  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness)  also  tempted,  and 
were  destroyed  by  serpents/  x.  9.     The  pronoun  him 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  67 

must  be  understood  after  '  tempted,'  and  it  is  found  in 
some  MSS.,  though  not  sufficiently  numerous  to  war- 
rant its  insertion  in  the  text.  It  is,  however,  necessari- 
ly imphed,  and  refers  to  Christ  just  before  mentioned. 
The  Jews  in  the  wilderness  here  are  said  to  have  tempt- 
ed some  person  ;  and  to  understand  by  that  person  any 
other  than  Christ,  who  is  just  before  named,  is  against 
all  grammar,  which  never  allows  without  absolute  neces- 
sity any  other  accusative  to  be  understood  by  the  verb 
than  that  of  some  person  or  thing  before  mentioned  in 
the  same  sentence.  The  conjunction  also  establishes 
this  interpretation  beyond  doubt :  '  Neither  let  us  tempt 
Christ  as  some  of  them  also  tempted' — tempted 
whom  ?  The  answer  clearly  is,  as  they  also  tempted 
Christ.  If  Christ  then  was  the  person  whom  the  Is- 
raelites tempted  in  the  wilderness,  he  unavoidably  be- 
c-omes  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament.' 

"  This  is  rendered  the  more  striking,  when  the  pas- 
sage to  which  the  Apostle  refers  is  given  at  length. 
'  Ye  shall  not  tempt  the  Lord  your  God,  as  ye  tempt- 
ed him  in  Massah.'  Now  what  could  lead  the  Apostle 
to  substitute  Christ,  in  the  place  of  the  Lord  your  God  ? 
'  Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of  them  also 
tempted'  Christ,  for  that  is  the  accusative  which  must 
be  supplied.  Nothing  certainly  but  that  the  idea  was 
familiar  to  him,  that  Christ,  and  the  Jehovah,  who  con- 
ducted and  governed  the  Israelites,  were  the  same  per- 
son. 

"  These  views  are  confirmed  by  the  testimonies  of 
the  early  Fathers,  to  whom  the  opinions  of  the  Apos- 
tles, on  this  subject,  would  naturally  descend. 

"Justin  Martyr  has  delivered  his  sentiments  very 
freely  upon  the  Divine  appearances.  'Our  Christ,^  he 
says,  '  conversed  with  Moses  out  of  the  bush,  in  the 
appearance  of  fire.  And  Moses  received  great  strength 
from  Christ,  who  spake  to  him  in  the  appearance  of 
fire.'  Again  : — '  He  formerly  appeared  in  the  form  of 
fire,  and  without  a  human  shape,  to  Moses  and  the  oth- 


68  DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST. 

er  prophets :  but  now — being  made  a  man  of  the  Vir- 
gin,' he. 

^'  Irenseus  says,  '  The  Scripture  is  full  of  the  Son  of 
God's  appearing  :  sometimes  to  talk  and  eat  with  Abra- 
ham, at  other  times  to  instruct  Noah  about  the  mea- 
sures of  the  ark ;  at  another  time  to  seek  Adam ;  at 
another  time  to  bring  down  judgment  upon  Sodom  ;  then 
again,  to  direct  Jacob  in  the  way ;  and  again  to  con- 
verse with  Moses  out  of  the  bush.' 

"  TertuUian  says,  '  It  was  the  Son  who  judged  men 
from  the  beginning,  destroying  that  lofty  tower,  and 
confounding  their  languages,  punishing  the  whole  world 
with  a  flood  of  waters,  and  raining  fire  and  brimstone 
upon  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  the  Lord  pouring  it  down 
from  the  Lord :  for  he  always  descended  to  hold  con- 
verse with  men,  from  Adam  even  to  the  patriarchs  and 
prophets,  in  visions,  in  dreams,  in  mirrors,  in  dark  sen- 
tences, always  preparing  his  way  from  the  beginning : 
neither  was  it  possible,  that  the  God  who  conversed  with 
men  upon  earth,  could  be  any  other  than  that  Word 
which  was  to  be  made  flesh.' 

"  Clemens  Alexandrinus  says,  '  Christ  gave  the  world 
the  law  of  nature,  and  the  written  law  of  Moses.' 

*'  Origen  says,  '  My  Lord  Jesus  Christ  descended  to 
the  earth  more  than  once.  He  came  down  to  Esaias, 
to  Moses,  and  to  every  one  of  the  prophets.'  Again  : 
*  That  our  blessed  Saviour  did  sometimes  become  as 
an  angel,  we  may  be  induced  to  believe,  if  we  consider 
the  appearances  and  speeches  of  angels,  who  in  some 
texts  have  said,  ^  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the 
God  of  Isaac,' '  &c." 

We  think  we  have  now  proved,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
every  unprejudiced  person,  both  from  the  Scriptures  of 
Divine  truth  and  from  the  opinions  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian writers  ;  writers  who  lived  before  the  council  of 
Nice,  at  which  time  Unitarians  contend  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  hud  its  origin,  that  Jesus  Cln-ist  is  the  Jeho- 
vah of  the  Old  Testament,  who  claimed  and  received 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  69 

the  worship  of  the  Jewish  nation,  from  which  it  must 
follow  either  that  he  is  the  eternal  self-existent  first 
cause  of  all  things,  or  that  the  Jewish  as  well  as  the 
Christian  Church  have  always  worshipped  a  creature  in- 
stead of  the  Creator,  and  that  the  Supreme  governor  of 
the  universe  has  never  yet  revealed  himself  to  the  chil- 
dren of  men. 

III.  The  titles  of  Christ  prove  his  Divinity,  for  they 
are  such  as  can  designate  a  Divine  Being,  and  a  Divine 
Being  only.  Consequently,  our  Saviour,  to  whom 
these  titles  are  by  inspired  authority  ascribed,  must  be 
Divine,  or  otherwise  the  word  of  Truth  must  stand 
charged  with  practising  a  direct  deception  upon  man- 
kind, and  that  in  a  fundamental  article  of  religion. 
This  is  our  argument,  and  we  proceed  to  the  illustration. 

The  first  of  these  titles  which  calls  for  our  attention 
is  that  of  Jehovah.  So  many  instances  of  this  being 
applied  to  Christ  were  given  in  the  preceding  argu- 
ment that  it  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  them  ;  and  indeed 
the  fact,  that  the  name  Jehovah  is  applied  to  the  Mes- 
siah in  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  admit- 
ted by  the  manner  in  which  the  argument,  deduced  from 
tliis  fact,  is  objected  to  by  our  opponents.  "  The  Jew- 
ish Cabbalists,"  says  Dr.  Priestly,  '^  might  easily  ad- 
mit that  the  Messiah  might  be  called  Jehovah,  without 
supposing  that  he  was  any  thing  more  than  a  man,  who 
had  no  existence  before  his  birth." — "  Several  things  in 
the  Scriptures  are  called  by  the  name  of  Jehovah  ;  as, 
Jerusalem  is  called  Jehovah  our  Righteousness."  They 
are  not,  however,  the  Jewish  interpreters  only  who  give 
the  name  Jehovah  to  Messiah ;  but  the  inspired  Pro- 
phets themselves,  in  passages  which,  by  the  equally  in- 
spired Evangelists  and  Apostles,  are  applied  to  Jesus. 
No  instance  can  be  given  in  which  any  being,  acknowl- 
edged by  all  to  be  a  created  being,  is  called  Jehovah  in 
the  Scriptures,  or  was  so  called  among  the  Jews.  The 
peculiar  sacredness  attached  to  this  name  among  thera 
was  a  sufficient  guard  against  such  an  application  of  it 


TO  DIVINITY  OF    CHRIST. 

in  their  common  language  ;  and  as  for  the  Scriptures, 
they  exphcitly  represent  it  as  pecuhar  to  Divinity  itself. 
"  /  am  Jehovah,  that  is  my  name,  and  my  glory  will  I 
not  give  to  another.''  "I  am  Jehovah,  and  there  is 
none  else,  there  is  no  God  besides  me."  "  Thou,  whose 
NAME  ALONE  is  Jehovah,  art  the  most  high,  above 
all  the  earth."  The  peculiarity  of  the  name  is  often 
strongly  stated  by  Jewish  commentators,  which  suffi- 
ciently refutes  Dr.  Priestley,  who  affirms  that  they  could 
not,  on  that  account,  conclude  the  Messiah  to  be  more 
than  a  man.  Kimschi  paraphrases  Isaiah  xliii.  8 :  "  Je- 
hovah, that  is  my  name  " — ''  that  name  is  proper  to 
me."  On  Hosea  xii.  5  :  "  Jehovah  his  memorial,"  he 
says,  "  In  the  name  El  and  Elohim,  he  communicates 
with  others ;  but,  in  this  name,  he  communicates  with 
none."  Aben  Ezra,  on  Exodus  iii.  14,  proves,  at 
length,  that  this  name  is  proper  to  God. 

It  is,  surely,  a  miserable  pretence  to  allege,  that  this 
name  is  sometimes  given  io  places.  It  is  so  ;  but  only 
in  comparison  with  some  other  word,  and  not,  surely,  as 
indicative  of  any  quality  in  the  places  themselves,  but 
as  memorials  of  the  acts  and  goodness  of  Jehovah 
himself,  as  manifested  in  those  locahties.  So  "  Jeho- 
vah-Jireh,  in  the  mount  of  the  Lord  it  shall  be  seen," 
or,  "  the  Lord  will  see  or  provide,"  referred  to  his  in- 
terposition to  save  Isaac,  and,  probably,  to  i\\Q provision 
of  the  future  sacrifice  of  Christ.  The  same  observation 
may  be  made  as  to  Jehovah  Nissi,  Jehovah  Shallum, 
&c. :  they  are  names  not  descriptive  of  places,  but  of 
events  connected  with  them,  which  marked  the  interpo- 
sition and  character  of  God  himself. 

Nor  is  it  true,  that,  in  Jeremiah  xxxiii.  16,  Jerusalem 
is  called  "  Jehovah  our  Righteousness."  The  parallel 
passage  in  the  same  book,  chap,  xxiii.  5,  6,  sufficiently 
shows  that  this  is  not  the  name  oi  Jerusalem,  but  the  name 
of  "  The  Branch."  Much  criticism  has  been  bestowed 
upon  these  passages  to  establish  the  point,  whether  the 
clause  ought  to  be  rendered,  "And  this  is  the  name  by 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  71 

which  the  Lord  shall  call  him,  owr  Righteousness  ;"  or, 
"  this  is  the  name  by  which  he  shall  be  called,  the  Lord 
our  Righteousness ;"  which  last  has,  I  think,  been  de- 
cisively established  ;  but  he  would  be  a  very  exception- 
able critic  who  should  conclude  either  of  them  to  be  an 
appellative,  not  of  Messiah,  but  of  Jerusalem,  contrary 
both  to  the  scope  of  the  passage  and  the  literal  render- 
ing of  the  words,  words  capable  of  somewhat  dif- 
ferent constructions,  but  in  no  case  capable  of  being 
applied  either  to  the  people  of  Judah,  or  to  the  city  of 
Jeiiisalem. 

The  force  of  the  argument  from  the  application  of 
the  name  of  Jehovah  to  Messiah  may  be  thus  stated : 

Whatever  belongs  to  Messiah,  that  may  and  must  be 
attributed  to  Jesus,  as  being  the  true  and  only  Christ ; 
and  accordingly  we  have  seen,  that  the  Evangelists  and 
Apostles  apply  those  passages  to  our  Lord,  in  which  the 
Messiah  is  unequivocally  called  Jehovah.  But  this  is 
the  peculiar  and  appropriate  name  of  God ;  that  name 
by  which  he  is  distinguished  from  all  other  beings,  and 
which  imports  perfections  so  high  and  appropriate  to  the 
only  living  and  true  God,  Such  as  self-existence  and 
eternity,  that  it  can,  in  truth,  be  a  descriptive  appella- 
tion of  no  other  being.  It  is,  however,  solemnly  and 
repeatedly  given  to  the  Messiah ;  and,  unless  we  can 
suppose  Scripture  to  contradict  itsaif,  by  making  that 
a  peculiar  name  which  is  not  peculiar  to  him,  and  to 
establish  an  inducement  to  that  idolatry  which  it  so 
sternly  condemns,  and  an  excuse  for  it,  then  this  adora- 
ble name  itself  declares  the  absolute  Divinity  of  him 
who  is  invested  with  it,  and  is  to  him,  as  well  as  to  the 
Father,  a  name  of  revelation,  a  name  descriptive  of  the 
attributes  which  can  pertain  only  to  essential  Godhead. 

2.  This  conclusion  is  corroborated  by  the  constant 
use  of  the  title  "  Lord  "  as  an  appellation  of  Jesus,  the 
Messiah,  when  manifest  in  the  flesh.  His  disciples  not 
only  applied  to  him  those  passages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment,  in  which  the  Messiah  is  called  Jehovah,  but 


72  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

salute  and  worship  him  by  a  title  which  is  of  precisely 
the  same  original  import,  and  which  is,  therefore,  to  be 
considered  in  many  places  of  the  Septuagint  and  the 
New  Testament,  an  exact  translation  of  the  august 
name  Jehovah,  and  fully  equivalent  to  it  in  its  import. 
It  is  allowed,  that  it  is  also  used  as  the  translation  of 
other  names  of  God,  which  import  simply  dominion, 
and  that  it  is  applied  also  to  merely  human  masters  and 
rulers.  It  is  not,  therefore,  like  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old 
Testament,  an  incommunicable  name,  but,  in  its  highest 
sense,  it  is  universally  allowed  to  belong  to  God ;  and, 
if,  in  this  highest  sense,  it  is  applied  to  Christ,  then  is 
the  argument  valid,  that  in  the  sacred  writers,  whether 
used  to  express  the  self  and  independent  existence  of 
him  who  bears  it,  or  that  dominion  which,  from  it  nature 
and  circumstances,  must  be  Divine,  it  contains  a  no- 
tion of  true  and  absolute  Divinity. 

The  first  proof  of  this  is,  that,  both  in  the  Septuagint 
and  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  the  term 
by  which  the  name  Jehovah  is  translated,  and,  in  all 
passages  in  which  Messias  is  called  by  that  peculiar  title 
of  Divinity,  we  have  this  authority  to  apply  it,  in  its  full 
and  highest  signification,  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  himself 
that  Messias.  For  this  reason,  and  also  because,  as 
men  inspired,  they  were  directed  to  fit  and  proper  terms, 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  apply  this  appella- 
tion to  their  Master,  when  they  quote  these  prophetic 
passages  as  fulfilled  in  him.  They  found  it  used  in  the 
Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  its  highest  pos- 
sible import,  as  a  rendering  of  Jehovah.  Had  they 
thought  Jesus  less  than  God,  they  ought  to  have  avoid- 
ed, and  must  have  avoided,  giving  to  him  a  title  which 
would  mislead  their  readers  ;  or  else  have  intimated,  that 
they  did  not  use  it  in  its  highest  sense  as  a  title  of  Di- 
vinity, but  in  its  very  lowest,  as  a  term  of  merely  hu- 
man courtesy,  or,  at  best,  of  human  dominion.  But  we 
have  no  such  intimation ;  and,  if  they  wrote  under  the 
inspiration  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  it  follows,  that  they 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  73^ 

used  it  as  being  understood  to  be  fully  equivalent  to  the 
title  Jehovah  itself.  This  their  quotations  will  show. 
The  evangelist  Matthew  (iii.  3)  quotes  and  applies  to 
Christ  the  celebrated  pro4)hecy  of  Isaiah  xl.  3  :  ''  For 
this  is  he  that  w^as  spoken  of  by  the  Prophet  Esaias, 
saying,  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Pre* 
pare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his  paths  straight." 
The  other  evangelists  make  the  same  application  of  it, 
representing  John  as  the  herald  of  Jesus,  the  '^  Jeho- 
vah" of  the  Prophet.  It  was,  therefore,  in  the  highest 
possible  sense  that  they  used  the  terra,  because  they 
used  it  as  fully  equivalent  to  Jehovah.  So  again,  in 
Luke  i.  16,  17  :  "  And  many  of  the  children  of  Israel 
shall  he  turn  to  the  Lord  their  God,  and  he  shall  go 
before  him  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias."  ''  Him," 
unquestionably  refers  to  ''the  Lord  their  God;"  and 
we  have  here  a  proof  that  Christ  bears  that  eminent 
title  of  Divinity,  so  frequent  in  the  Old  Testament, 
*'  the  Lord  God,"  Jehovah  Aleim  ;  and  also  that  Lord 
answered,  in  the  view  of  an  inspired  writer,  to  the  name 
Jehovah.  On  this  point  the  Apostle  Paul  also  adds  his 
testimony,  Romans  x.  13,  "  Whosoever  shall  call  upon 
tlie  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved  ;"  which  is  quoted 
from  Joel  ii.  3'2,  "  Whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of 
Jehovah  shall  be  delivered."  Other  passages  might 
be  added,  but  the  argument  does  not  rest  upon  their 
number  ;  these  are  so  explicit,  that  they  are  amply  suf- 
ficient to  establish  the  important  conclusion,  that,  in 
whatever  senses  the  term  "jLort/"  may  be  used,  and 
though  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  like  our- 
selves, use  it  occasionally  in  a  lower  sense,  yet  they  use 
it  also  in  its  highest  possible  sense,  and  in  its  loftiest  sig- 
nification, when  they  intend  it  to  be  understood  as 
equivalent  to  Jehovah,  and,  in  that  sense,  they  apply  it 
to  Christ. 

But,  even  when  the  title  "  Lord"  is  not  employed 
to  render  the  name  Jehovah,  in  passages  quoted  from 
the  Old  Testament,  but  is  used  as  the  common  appella- 
7 


74  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

tion  of  Christ,  after  his  resurrection,  the  disciples  sa 
connect  it  with  other  terms,  and  with  circumstances 
which  so  clearly  imply  Divinity,  that  it  cannot  reason- 
ably be  made  a  question  but  that  they  themselves  con- 
sidered it  as  a  Divine  title,  and  intended  that  it  should 
be  so  understood  by  their  readers.  In  that  sense  they 
applied  it  to  the  Father,  and  it  is  clear,  that  they  did 
not  use  it  in  a  lower  sense  when  they  gave  it  to  the  Son. 
It  is  put  absolutely,  and  by  way  of  eminence,  '•  the 
Lord."  It  is  joined  with  '•  God  ;"  so  in  the  passage 
above  quoted  from  St.  Luke,  where  Christ  is  called  the 
Lord  God  ;  and  when  Thomas,  in  an  act  of  adoration, 
calls  him  ''My  Lord  and  my  God."  When  it  is  used 
to  express  dominion,  that  dominion  is  represented  as  ab- 
solute and  universal,  and,  therefore,  divine.  "iJe  is 
Lord  of  all.''''  "  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords. '^ 
"  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  the  earth  ;  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thy 
hands.  They  shall  perish  ;  but  thou  remainest :  and 
they  all  shall  w^ax  old,  as  doth  a  garment,  and  as  a  ves- 
ture shalt  thou  fold  them  up,  and  they  shall  be  changed ; 
but  thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years  shall  not  fail." 

Thus,  then,  the  titles  of  "Jehovah"  and  "Lord" 
both  prove  the  Divinity  of  our  Saviour  ;  "  for,"  as  it  is 
remarked  by  Dr.  Waterland,  "  if  Jehovah  signify  the 
eternal,  immutable  God,  it  is  manifest  that  the  name  is 
incommunicable,  since  there  is  but  one  God;  and,  if  the 
name  be  incommunicable,  then  Jehovah  can  signify  no- 
thing but  that  one  God,  to  whom,  and  to  whom  only,  it 
is  applied.  And  if  both  these  parts  be  true,  and  if  it 
be  true,  likewise,  that  this  name  is  applied  to  Christ,  the 
consequence  is  irresistible,  that  Christ  is  the  same  one 
God,  not  the  same  person,  with  the  Father,  to  whom 
also  the  name  Jehovah  is  attributed,  but  the  same  sub- 
stance, the  same  being,  in  a  word,  the  same  Jehovah, 
thus  revealed  to  be  more  persons  than  one." 

2.  Jesus  Christ  is  called  God  :  this  the  adversaries  of 
his  Divinity  are  obliged  to  confess,  and  this  confession 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  75 

admits,  that  the  letter  of  Scripture  is,  therefore,  in  favor 
of  orthodox  opinions.  It  is,  indeed,  said,  that  the  term 
God,  hke  the  term  Lord,  is  used  in  an  inferior  sense  ; 
but  nothing  is  gained  by  this  ;  nothing  is,  on  that  ac- 
count, proved  against  the  Deity  of  Christ ;  for  it  must 
still  be  allowed,  that  it  is  a  term  used  in  Scripture  to  ex- 
press the  Divine  Nature,  and  that  it  is  so  used  generally. 
The  question,  therefore,  is  only  limited  to  this,  whether 
our  Lord  is  called  God,  in  the  highest  sense  of  that  ap- 
pellation. This  might,  indeed,  be  argued  from  those 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament  in  which  the  title  is  given 
to  the  Jehovah,  "the  Lord  God"  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  but  this  having  been  anticipated,  I  confine  my- 
self chiefly  to  the  Evangehsts  and  Apostles. 

Matthew  i.  23  :  ''  Now  all  this  was  done,  that  it  might 
be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the  pro- 
phet, saying.  Behold  a  virgin  shall  be  with  child  and 
shall  bring  forth  a  Son,  and  they  shall  call  his  name 
Emmanuel,  which  being  interpreted,  is,  God  with  us." 
This  is  a  portion  of  Scripture  which  the  Socinians,  in 
their  "  Improved  Version,"  have  printed  in  italics,  as  of 
^'  doubtHil  authority,"  though,  with  the  same  breath, 
they  allow  that  it  is  found  "  in  all  the  manuscripts  and 
versions  which  are  now  extant."  The  ground,  there- 
fore, on  which  they  have  rested  their  objection  is  con- 
fessedly naiTOW  and  doubtful,  and  frail  as  it  is,  it  has 
been  entirely  taken  from  them,  and  the  authority  of  this 
scripture  fully  established.  The  reason  of  an  attempt, 
at  once  so  bold  and  futile,  to  expunge  this  passage,  and 
the  following  part  of  St.  Matthew's  history  which  is 
connected  with  it,  may  be  found  in  the  explicitness  of 
the  testimony  which  it  bears  to  our  Lord's  Divinity,  and 
which  no  criticism  could  evade.  The  prophecy  which 
4s  quoted  by  the  Evangelist  has  its  difficulties  ;  but  they 
do  not  in  the  least  affect  the  argument.  Whether  we 
can  explain  Isaiah  or  not,  that  is,  whether  we  can  show 
in  what  manner  the  prophecy  had  a  primary  accomplish- 
ment in  the  prophet's  day  or  not,  St.  Matthew  is  suf!i- 


16  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

ciently  intelligible.  He  tells  us,  that  the  words  spokera 
by  the  prophet  were  spoken  of  Christ;  and  that  his- 
miraculous  conception  took  place,  "  that,"  in  order  thaty. 
"  they  might  be  fulfilled  ;"  a  mode  of  expression  so 
strong,  that  even  those  who  allow  the  prophets  to  be 
quoted  sometimes  by  way  of  accommodation  by  the 
writers  of  the  'New  Testament,  except  this  instance,  as 
having  manifestly,  from  the  terms  used,  the  form  of  an 
argument,  and  not  of  a  mere  allusion.  Farther,  says 
the  sacred  historian,  "  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Em- 
manuel ;^^  that  is,  according  to  the  idiom  of  Scripture, 
where  any  thing  is  said  to  be  called  what  it  in  reality  is. 
he  shall  be  '^Emmanuel,^^  and  the  interpretation  is  Sd- 
ded,  "  God  with  usJ' 

"  It  is,  indeed,  objected,  that  the  Divinity  of  Christy 
can  no  more  be  argued  from  this  title  of  Emmanuel  than 
the  Divinity  of  Eli,  whose  name  signifies  my  God,  or 
of  Elihu,  which  imports  my  God  himself;  but  it  is  to 
be  remarked,  that  by  these  names  such  individuals  were 
commonly  and  constantly  known  among  those  with 
whom  they  lived.  But  Immanuel  was  not  the  person- 
al name  of  our  Lord,  he  was  not  so  called  by  his  friends 
and  countrymen  familiarly  :  the  personal  name  which 
he  received  was  Jesus,  by  Divine  direction,  and  by  this 
he  was  known  to  the  world.  It  follows,  therefore,  that 
Immanuel  was  a  descriptive  title,  a  name  of  revelation, 
expressive  of  his  Divine  character.  It  is  clear,  also, 
that  in  this  passage  he  is  called  God  ;  and  two  circum- 
stances, in  addition  to  that  just  mentioned,  prove  that 
the  term  is  used  in  its  full  and  highest  sense.  In  Isaiah, 
from  which  the  passage  is  quoted  by  the  Evangelist,  the 
land  of  Judea  is  called  the  land  of  this  Immanuel  more 
than  seven  centuries  before  he  was  born.  '  And  he 
the  Assyrian)  shall  pass  through  Judah  ;  he  shall  over- 
ow  and  go  over,  he  shall  reach  even  to  the  neck,  and 
the  stretching  out  of  his  wings  shall  fill  the  breadth  of 
thy  land,  O  Immanuel,"  Chap.  viji.  8.  Thus  is 
Christ,   according   to   a   former  argument,   represent- 


DlVmiTY    05'    CHRIST.  77 

ed  as  existing  before  his  birth  in  Judea,  and,  as  the 
God  of  the  Jews,  the  proprietor  of  the  land  of  Isra- 
el. This  also  gives  the  true  explanation  of  St.  John's 
words,  '  He  came  unto  his  own,  [nation,]  and  his  own 
[people]  received  him  not.'  The  second  circumstance 
which  proves  the  term  God,  in  the  title  Immanuel,  to  be 
used  in  its  highest  sense  is,  that  the  same  person,  in  the 
following  chapter  of  Isaiah,  is  called  '  God,'  with  the 
epithet  of  'mighty,' — 'Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the 
Mighty  God.'  Thus,  as  Bishop  Pearson  observes, 
^  First,  he  is  'Immanu,'  that  is  with  us,  for  he  hath  dwelt 
among  us  ;  and  when  he  parted  from  the  earth,  he  said 
to  his  disciples,  '  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  to  the  end 
of  the  world.'  Secondly,  he  is  El,  and  that  name  was 
given  him,  as  the  same  prophet  testified,  '  his  name  shall 
be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God.' 
He  then  who  is  both  properly  called  El,  that  is  God, 
and  is  also  really  Immanu,  that  is  with  us,  must  infalli- 
bly, be  that  '  Immanuel,'  who  is  '  God  with  us.''  No 
inferior  Deity,  but  invested  with  the  full  and  complete 
attributes  of  absolute  Divinity — '  the  Mighty  God.' ' 

"  In  Luke  i.  16,  17,  it  is  said  of  John  Baptist,  '  And 
many  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  he  turn  to  the  Lord 
their  God,  and  he  shall  go  before  him  in  the  spirit  and 
power  of  Elias.'  This  passage  has  been  already  ad- 
duced to  prove,  that  the  title  '  Lord'  is  used  of  Christ 
in  the  import  of  Jehovah.  But  he  is  called  the  Lord 
their  God,  and,  as  the  term  Lord  is  used  in  its  highest 
sense,  so  must  also  the  term  God,  which  proves  that 
this  title  is  given  to  our  Saviour  in  its  fullest  and  most 
extended  meaning — '  to  Jehovah  their  God,'  or  '  to 
their  God  Jehovah,'  for  the  meaning  is  the  same." 

Equally  conclusive  are  the  words  of  the  Evangelist 
in  John  i.  1  :  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  word,  and  the 
word  was  with  God,  and  the  word  was  God."  Christ 
is  here  called  God  in  the  highest  sense.  1.  Because 
when  thig  title  is  applied  to  the  Father,  in  the  preceding 
clause,  it  must  be  used  in  its  full  import.  2.  Because 
7* 


78  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

immediately  to  call  our  Lord  by  the  same  name  as  th« 
Father,  without  any  hint  of  its  being  used  in  a  lower 
sense,  would  have  been  to  mislead  the  reader  on  a  most 
important  question,  if  St.  John  had  not  regarded  him  as 
equal  to  the  Father.  3.  Because  the  creation  is  ascri- 
bed to  the  "Word,"  who  is  called  God.  "All  things 
were  made  by  him,  and  without  him  was  not  any  thing 
made  that  was  made."  By  this,  the  absolute  Divinity 
of  Christ  is  infallibly  determined,  unless  we  should  run 
into  the  absurdity  of  supposing  it  possible  for  a  creature 
to  create,  and  not  only  to  create  all  other  created  things, 
but  himself  also.  For,  if  Christ  be  not  God,  he  is  a 
creature  ;  and  if  "  not  any  thing  that  was  made"  was 
made  "  without  him,"  then  he  made  himself. 

"  The  introduction  to  St.  John's  Gospel  may,  there- 
fore, be  considered  as  an  inexpugnable  proof  that  Deity, 
in  its  highest,  and  in  no  secondary  or  subordinate,  sense 
is  ascribed  to  our  Saviour,  under  his  title  God^ — '  and 
the  Word  was  God.'  Nor  in  any  other  than  the  high- 
est sense  of  the  term  God  can  the  confession  of 
Thomas,  John  xx.  28,  be  understood.  '  And  Thomas 
answered  and  said  unto  him.  My  Lord  and  my  God.' 
Unitarians,  however,  contend  that  this  may  be  consider- 
ed not  as  a  confession,  but  as  an  exclamation,  '  My 
Lord  !  and  my  God  1'  thereby  choosing  to  put  profane, 
or,  at  least,  vulgar  language  into  the  mouth  of  this  Apos- 
tle, of  which  degradation  we  have  certainly  no  example 
in  the  narration  of  the  Evangelists.  Michaelis  has 
justly  observed,  that  if  Thomas  had  spoken  German, 
(he  might  have  added  English,  French,  or  Italian,)  it 
might  have  been  contended,  with  some  plausibility,  that 
'  My  Lord  and  my  God"  was  only  an  irreverent  ejacu- 
lation ;  but  that  Jewish  astonishment  was  thus  express- 
ed is  wholly  without  proof  or  support.  Add  to  this, 
that  the  words  are  introduced,  with  said  to  him,  that  is, 
to  Christ ;  a  mere  ejaculation,  such  as  that  here  suppo- 
sed, is  rather  an  appeal  to  Heaven.  Our  Saviour's  re- 
ply makes  it  absolutely    certain,    that   the  words  of 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  79 

Thomas,  though  they  are  in  the  form  of  an  exclamation, 
amount  to  a  confession  of  faith,  and  were  equivalent  to 
a  direct  assertion  of  our  Saviour's  Divinity.  Christ 
commends  Thomas'  acknowledgment,  while  he  con- 
demns the  tardiness  with  which  it  is  made  ;  but  to  what 
did  this  acknowledgment  amount  ?  That  Christ  was 
Lord  and  God. 

"  In  Titus  ii.  13,  '  Looking  for  that  blessed  hope,  and 
the  glorious  appearing  of  the  Great  God  and  our  Sa- 
viour Jesus  Christ,'  our  Lord  is  not  only  called  God,  but 
the  Great  God,  which  marks  the  sense  in  which  the 
term  is  used  by  the  Apostle,  and  gives  unequivocal  ev- 
idence of  his  opinions  on  the  subject  of  Christ's  Divin- 
ity. Unitarian  interpreters  tell  us,  that  '  the  Great  God 
and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ '  are  two  persons,  and 
therefore  refer  the  title  '  Great  God '  to  the  Father, 
and  accordingly  render  the  text,  '  the  glorious  appear- 
ance of  the  Great  God  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.' 
To  this  interpretation  there  are  satisfactory  answers. 
Dr.  Whitby  observes : 

" '  Here  it  deserveth  to  be  noted,  that  it  is  highly 
probable,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  styled  the  Great  God,  \, 
Because,  in  the  original,  the  article  is  prefixed  only  be- 
fore the  Great  God,  and  therefore  seems  to  require  this 
construction,  the  appearance  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Great 
God  and  our  Saviour.  2.  Because,  as  God  the  Father 
is  not  said  properly  to  appear,  so  that  word  never  oc- 
curs in  the  New  Testament,  but  when  it  is  to  be  ap- 
plied to  Jesus  Christ  and  to  some  coming  of  his  ;  the 
places  in  which  it  is  to  be  found  being  only  these :  2 
Thess.  ii.  8  ;  1  Tim.  vi.  14  ;  2  Tim.  i.  10 ;  and  iv.  1, 
8.  3.  Because  Christ  is  emphatically  styled  our  hope, 
the  hope  of  glory :  Col.  i.  23  ;  1  Tim.  i*  1.  And, 
lastly ,  because  not  only  all  the  ancient  commentators  on 
the  place  do  so  interpret  this  text,  but  the  anti-Nicene 
fathers  also  ;  Hyppolitus,  speaking  of  the  appearance 
of  our  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ ;  and  Clemens  of 
Alexandria,  proving  Christ  to  be  both  God  and  man,  our 


80  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

Creator,  and  the  Author  of  all  our  good  things,  from 
these  very  words  of  St.  Paul.' 

"Another  passage,  in  which  the  appellation  God  is 
given  to  Christ,  in  a  connection  which  necessarily  obli- 
ges us  to  understand  it  in  its  highest  sense,  is  Heb.  i.  8  : 
'  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for 
ever  and  ever.'  The  argument  of  the  Apostle  here 
determines  the  sense  in  which  he  calls  Jesus,  the  Son, 
*  God,'  and  the  views  he  entertains  of  his  nature.  An- 
gels and  men  are  the  only  rational  created  beings  in  the 
universe  which  are  mentioned  by  the  sacred  writers. 
The  Apostle  argues,  that  Christ  is  superior  even  to  an- 
gels ;  that  they  are  but  ministers^  he  a  sovereign,  seated 
on  a  throne ;  that  they  worship  him,  and  that  he  re- 
ceives ivorship  ;  that  they  are  creatures,  but  he  creator. 
'  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  has  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  earth  ;  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thine 
hands  ;'  and,  full  of  these  ideas  of  supreme  Divinity, 
he  applies  a  passage  to  him  out  the  45th  Pslam,  which 
is  there  addressed  to  the  Messiah,  '  Thy  throne,  O  God, 
is  for  ever  and  ever.'  " 

The  Unitarians,  however,  find  fault  with  the  trans- 
lation of  this  passage,  and  assume  the  responsibility 
of  rendering  it  as  follows  :  "  But  unto  the  Son  he  saith, 
God  is  thy  throne  forever  and  ever."  This  interpreta- 
tion, however,  is  monstrous,  and  derives  no  support 
from  any  parallel  figurative  or  eliptical  mode  of  expres- 
sion in  the  sacred  writings.  God  the  throne  of  a  crea- 
ture !  If  so,  then  a  creature  must  be  greater  than  God, 
inasmuch  as  the  one  who  sits  upon  a  throne  must  be 
greater  than  the  throne  upon  which  he  sits.  This,  cer- 
tainly, is  strange  theology.  A  creature,  in  order  to 
support  Unitarianism,  must  become  a  God,  while  the 
infinite  Jehovah  must  be  converted  into  a  throne  to  be 
occupied  by  this  created  Deity;  and,  finally,  all  this 
absurdity  must  be  charged  upon  the  inspired  penman. 

"  'And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and 
hath  given  us  an  undei-standing,  that  we  may  know  him 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  81 

that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his 
Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God  and 
Eternal  Life.'  1  John  v.  20.  Here  our  Saviour  is 
called  the  true  God  and  Eternal  Life.  The  nutans  by 
which  this  testimony  is  evaded,  is  to  interpret  the  clause 
'  him  that  is  true,'  of  the  Father,  and  to  refer  the  pro- 
noun this,  not  to  the  nearest  antecedent,  '  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ,'  but  to  the  most  remote,  '  him  that  is  true.'  AH, 
however,  that  is  pretended  by  Unitarian  critics  on 
this  passage  is,  not  that  this  construction  7niist,  but  that 
it  may  take  place.  Yet  even  this  feeble  opposition  to 
the  received  rendering  cannot  be  maintained  :  for,  1.  To 
interpret  the  clause,  '  him  that  is  true,'  of  the  Father, 
is  entirely  arbitrary  ;  and  the  scope  of  the  epistle,  which 
was  to  prove  that  Jesus  the  Christ  was  the  true  Son  of 
God,  and,  therefore.  Divine,  against  those  who  denied 
his  Divinity,  and  that  '  he  had  come  in  the  flesh,'  in 
opposition  to  the  heretics  who  denied  his  humanity, 
obliges  us  to  refer  that  phrase  to  the  Son,  and  not  to  the 
Father.  2.  If  it  could  be  established,  that  the  Father 
was  intended  by  '  him  that  Is  true,'  it  would  be  contrary 
to  grammatical  usage  to  refer  the  pronoun  this,  is  the 
*  true  God  and  Eternal  Life,'  to  the  remote  antecedent, 
without  obvious  and  indisputable  necessity. 

'' '  Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom,  as  concern- 
ing the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed 
for  ever.'  Rom.  ix.  5. 

"  With  respect  to  this  text,  it  is  to  be  noted, 

*'  1 .  That  it  continues  an  enumeration  of  the  partic- 
ular privileges  of  the  Jewish  nation  which  are  mention- 
ed in  the  preceding  verses,  and  the  Apostle  adds,  '  whose 
are  the  fathers,'  the  patriarchs  and  prophets,  and  of 
whom  '  the  Christ  came.' 

"  2.  That  he  throws  in  a  clause  of  limitation  ^^  ith 
respect  to  the  coming  of  Christ, '  according  to  the  flesh,^ 
which  clearly  states  that  it  was  only  according  to  the 
flesh,  the  humanity  of  Christ,  that  he  descended  from 
the  Jewish  nation,  and,  at  the  same  time,  intimates^ 
that  he  was  more  than  flesh,  or  mere  human  nature. 


82  DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST. 

"  3.  The  sentence  does  not  end  here :  the  Apostle 
adds,  '  who  is,  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever  ;'  a  rela- 
tive expression  which  evidently  refers  to  the  antecedent 
Christ ;  and  thus  we  have  an  antithesis,  which  shows 
the  reason  why  the  Apostle  introduced  the  limiting 
clause,  '  according  to  the  flesh ;'  and  explains  why 
Christ,  in  one  respect,  did  descend  from  the  Jews  ;  and 
in  another  that  this  could  not  be  affirmed  of  him :  he 
was  '  God  over  all,'  and,  therefore,  only  '  according  to 
the  flesh  '  could  he  be  of  human  descent. 

"4.  That  this  completes  the  Apostle's  purpose  to 
magnify  the  privileges  of  his  nation:  after  enumerating 
many  others,  he  crowns  the  whole  by  declaring,  that 
'  God  over  all,'  when  he  became  incarnate  for  the  sake 
of  human  salvation,  took  a  body  of  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham. 

"  Criticism  has,  of  course,  endeavored,  if  possible,  to 
weaken  the  argument  drawn  from  this  lofty  and  impreg- 
nable passage ;  but  it  is  of  such  a  kind  as  greatly  to 
confirm  the  truth.  For,  in  the  first  place,  various  read- 
ings of  manuscripts  cannot  here  be  resorted  to  for  ren- 
dering the  sense  dubious,  and  all  the  ancient  versions 
support  the  present  reading.  The  only  method  of 
dealing  with  this  passage  left  to  Unitarians  is,  therefore, 
to  attempt  to  obtain  a  different  sense  from  it  by  shift- 
ing the  punctuation.  By  this  device  some  read,  '  and 
of  whom  is  the  Christ  according  to  the  flesh.  God, 
who  is  over  all,  be  blessed  for  ever.'  Others,  '  and  of 
whom  is  the  Christ,  according  to  the  flesh,  who  is  over 
all.  Blessed  be  God  for  ever.'  A  critic  of  their  own, 
Mr.  Wakefield,  whose  authority  they  acknowledge  to 
be  great,  may,  however,  here  be  turned  against  them. 
Both  these  constructions,  he  acknowledges,  appear  so 
awkward,  so  abrupt,  so  incoherent,  that  he  could  never 
be  brought  to  relish  them  in  the  least  decree ;  and  Dr. 
S.  Clarke,  who  was  well  disposed  to  evade  this  decisive 
passage,  acknowledges  that  the  common  reading  is  the 
most  obvious. 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  83 

*'  '  Socinus  himself  rejects  it  for  this  very  good  rea- 
son, that  God  he  blessed,  is  an  unusual  and  unnatural 
construction ;  for,  wherever  else  these  words  signify 
blessed  be  God,  blessed  is  put  before  God,  as  Luke  i. 
68  :  'Z  Co.  i.  3  ;  Eph.  i.  3  ;  1  Pet.  i.  3  ;  and  God  has 
an  article  prefixed  to  it ;  nor  are  they  immediately  join- 
ed together  otherwise.  The  phrase  occurs  twenty  times 
in  the  Old  Testament,  but  in  every  place  blessed  goes  be- 
fore, and  the  article  is  annexed  to  the  word  God,  which 
is  a  demonstration  that  this  is  a  perversion  of  the  sense 
of  the  Apostle's  words.' 

"  Numerous  other  passages  might  be  cited,  where 
Christ  is  called  '  God:'  these  only  have  been  selected, 
not  merely  because  the  proof  does  not  rest  upon  the 
number  of  scriptural  testimonies,  but  upon  their  expli- 
citness,  and  also  because  they  ail  associate  the  term  God, 
as  applied  to  our  Saviour,  with  other  titles,  or  with  cir- 
cumstances which  demonstrate,  most  fully,  that  that 
term  was  used  by  the  inspired  penmen  in  its  highest 
sense  of  true  and  proper  Deity  when  they  applied  it  to 
Christ.  Thus  we  have  seen  it  associated  with  Jehovah ; 
with  Lord,  the  New  Testament  rendering  of  that  inef- 
fible  name  ;  with  acts  of  creative  energy,  as  in  the  in- 
troduction to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  ;  with  the  supreme 
dominion  and  perpetual  stability  of  the  throne  of  the 
Son,  in  the  First  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
In  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  he  is  called  ^  the  Great  God  ;' 
in  1  John,  'the  true  God,'  and  the  giver  of  'eter- 
nal LIFE  ;'  and  in  the  last  text  examined,  his  twofold  na- 
ture is  distinguished — man,  '  according  to  the  flesh,'  and, 
in  his  higher  nature,  God,  '  God  over  all  blessed  for 
evermore." —  Watson. 

IV.  The  acts  ascribed  to  Christ  prove  that  he  is 
Divine,  and  absolutely  God ;  for  they  are  such  as  could 
have  been  performad  by  none  but  God. 

1.  He  creates.  Col.  i.  16,  17:  "  For  by  him  were 
all  things  created  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are 
in    earth,    visible    and    invisible    whether    they     be 


84  DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST. 

thrones  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers :  all 
thin^^'s  were  created  by  him,  and  for  him :  and  he  is  be- 
fore all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist."  Here, 
as  Dr.  Clarke  remarks,  are  four  things  asserted.  1. 
That  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  of  all 
things  that  had  a  beginning,  whether  they  exist  in  time 
or  in  eternity.  2.  That  whatsoever  was  created,  was 
created  for  himself:  that  he  was  the  sole  end  of  his 
work.  3.  That  he  was  prior  to  all  creation,  to  all 
beings,  whether  in  the  visible  or  invisible  worlds.  4. 
That  he  is  the  preserver  and  governor  of  all  things  ;  for 
by  him  all  things  consist. 

Now,  allowing  St.  Paul  to  have  understood  the  terms 
which  he  used,  he  must  have  considered  Jesus  Christ 
as  being  truly  and  properly  God;  for  creation  is  the 
proper  work  of  an  infinite,  unlimited,  and  unoriginated 
being ;  possessed  of  all  perfections  in  their  highest  de- 
grees ;  capable  of  knowing,  willing,  and  working,  infi- 
nitely, unlimitedly,  and  without  control :  and  as  crea- 
tion signifies  the  production  of  being,  where  all  was 
absolute  nonentity,  so  it  necessarily  implies  that  the  Cre- 
ator acted  of  and  from  himself;  for,  as  previously  to 
this  creation  there  was  no  being,  consequently  he  could 
not  be  actuated  by  any  motive,  reason,  or  impulse, 
without  himself;  which  would  argue  there  was  some 
being  to  produce  the  motive,  or  impulse,  or  to  give  the 
reason.  Creation,  therefore,  is  the  work  of  him  who 
is  unoriginated,  infinite,  unlimited,  and  eternal.  But 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Creator  of  all  things  ;  therefore  Je- 
sus Christ  must  be,  according  to  the  plain  construction 
of  the  Apostle's  words,  truly  and  properly  God. 

As,  previously  to  creation,  there  was  no  being  but 
God,  consequently  the  great  First  Cause  must,  in  the 
exertion  of  his  creative  energy,  have  respect  to  himself 
alone  ;  for  he  could  no  more  have  respect  to  that  which 
had  no  existence,  than  he  could  have  been  moved  by 
nonexistence,  to  produce  existence  or  creation  ;  the 
Creator,  therefore,  must  make  every  thing  for  himself. 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  85 

Should  it  be  objected,  that  Christ  created  officially, 
or  by  delegation,  I  answer,  this  is  impossible ;  for,  as 
creation  requires  absolute  and  unlimited  power,  or  om- 
nipotence, there  can  be  but  one  Creator  ;  because  it  is 
impossible  that  there  can  be  two  or  more  omnipotents, 
infinites,  or  eternals.  It  is  therefore  evident,  that  crea- 
tion cannot  be  effected  officially,  or  by  delegation  ;  for 
this  would  imply  a  being  conferring  the  office,  and  del- 
egating such  power :  and  that  the  being  to  whom  it  was 
delegated  was  a  dependent  being ;  consequently,  not 
unoriginated  and  eternal :  but  this  the  nature  of  crea- 
tion proves  to  be  absurd  :  1 .  The  thing  being  impossi- 
ble in  itself,  because  no  limited  being  could  produce  a 
work  that  necessarily  requires  omnipotence.  2.  It  is 
impossible :  because  if  omnipotence  be  delegated,  he 
to  whom  it  is  delegated  had  it  not  before ;  and  he 
who  delegates  it  ceases  to  have  it ;  and  consequently 
ceases  to  be  God ;  and  the  other  to  whom  it  is  delega- 
ted becomes  God ;  because  such  attributes  as  those 
with  which  he  is  supposed  to  be  invested,  are  essential 
to  the  nature  of  God.  On  this  supposition,  God  ceas- 
es to  exist,  though  infinite  and  eternal ;  and  another,  not 
naturally  infinite  and  eternal,  becomes  such  :  and  thus  an 
infinite  and  eternal  being  ceases  to  exist,  and  another  in- 
finite and  eternal  being  is  produced  in  time,  and  has  a 
beginning,  which  is  absurd.  Therefore,  as  Christ  is  the 
creator,  he  did  not  create  by  delegation,  or  in  any  ofli- 
cial  way. 

Again,  if  he  had  created  by  delegation,  or  officially, 
it  would  have  been  for  that  being  who  gave  him  that 
office,  and  delegated  to  him  the  requisite  power ;  but 
the  text  says,  that  all  things  were  made  by  him,  and  for 
him,  which  is  a  demonstration  that  the  Apostle  under- 
stood Jesus  Christ  to  be  truly  and  essentially  God. 

As  all  creation  necessarily   exists  in  time,  and  had  a 

commencement,   and  there  was  an  infinite   duration  in 

which  it  did  not  exist ;  whatever  was  before  or  prior  to 

that,  must  be  no  part  of  creation  ;  and  the  being  who 

8 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST. 


existed  prior  to  creation,  and  before  all  things,  all  exist-* 
ence  of  every  kind,  must  be  the  unoriginated  and  eter- 
nal God  :  but  St.  Paul  says,  Jesus  Christ  was  before  all 
things ;  therefore  the  Apostle  conceived  Jesus  Christ 
to  be  truly  and  essentially  God. 

2.  As  every  effect  depends  upon  its  cause,  and  can- 
not exist  without  it,  so  creation,  which  is  an  effect  of 
the  power  and  skill  of  the  Creator,  can  only  exist  and 
be  preserved  by  a  continuance  of  that  energy  that  first 
gave  it*  being.  Hence  God,  as  the  preserver,  is  as  ne- 
cessary to  the  continuance  of  all  things,  as  God  the 
creator  was  to  their  original  production.  But  this  pre- 
serving or  continuing  power  is  here  ascribed  to  Christ ; 
for  the  Apostle  says.  And  by  him  do  all  things  consist ; 
for,  as  all  being  was  derived  from  him,  as  its  cause,  so 
all  being  must  subsist  by  him,  as  the  effect  subsists  by 
and  through  its  cause.  This  is  another  proof  that  the 
Apostle  considered  Jesus  Christ  to  be  truly  and  proper- 
ly God,  as  he  attributes  to  him  the  preservation  of  all 
created  things  ;  which  property  of  preservation,  belongs 
to  God  alone  :  therefore,  Jesus  Christ  is,  according  to  the 
plain  obvious  meaning  of  every  expression  in  this  text, 
truly,  properly,  independently,  and  essentially  God. — 
Clarice, 

3.  But  our  Lord  himself  professes  to  do  other  acts, 
besides  the  great  act  of  creating,  which  are  peculiar  to 
God ;  and  such  acts  are  also  attributed  to  him  by  his 
inspired  Apostles.  His  preserving  of  all  things  made 
by  him  has  already  been  mentioned,  and  which  implies 
not  only  a  Divine  power,  but  also  omnipresence^  since  he 
must  be  present  to  all  things,  in  order  to  their  constant 
conservation.  The  final  destruction  of  the  whole  frame 
of  material  nature  is  also  as  expressly  attributed  to  him 
as  its  creation.  "  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are  the 
works  of  thine  hands ;  these  shall  perish,  but  thou  re- 
mainest,  and  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  fold  them  up, 
and  they  shall  be  changed.' '     Here  omnipotent  power  is 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  87 

seen  ''  changing,"  and  removing,  and  taking  away  the 
vast  universe  of  material  things  with  the  same  ease  as 
it  was  spoken  into  being  and  at  first  disposed  into  order. 
Generally,  too,  our  Lord  claims  to  perform  the  works  of 
his  Father.  "If  I  do  not  the  avorks  of  my  Father, 
beheve  me  not ;  but  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me, 
believe  the  works."  Should  this,  even,  be  restrained 
to  the  working  of  miracles,  the  argument  remains  the 
same.  No  Prophet,  no  Apostle,  ever  used  such  lan- 
guage in  speaking  of  his  miraculous  gifts.  Here  Christ 
declares  that  he  performs  the  works  of  his  Father ;  not 
merely  that  the  Father  worked  by  him,  but  that  he  him- 
self did  the  works  of  God  ;  which  can  only  mean  works 
proper  or  peculiar  to  God,  and  which  a  Divine  power 
only  could  effect.  So  the  Jews  understood  him,  for, 
upon  this  declaration,  "  they  sought  again  to  take  him." 
That  this  power  of  working  miracles  was  in  him  an  ori- 
ginal power,  appears  also  from  his  bestowing  that  pow- 
er upon  his  disciples.  "  Behold  I  give  unto  you  power 
to  tread  on  serpents,  and  scorpions,  and  over  all  the 
power  of  the  enemy,  and  nothing  shall  by  any  means 
hurt  you."  Luke  x.  10.  '-And  he  gave  them  power 
and  authority  over  all  devils,  and  to  cure  diseases." 
Luke  ix.  L  Their  miracles  were,  therefore,  to  be  per- 
formed in  his  name,  by  which  the  power  of  effecting 
them  was  expressly  reserved  to  him.  "  In  my  name 
shall  they  cast  out  devils  ;"  "  and  his  name,  through 
faith  in  his  name  hath  made  this  man  strong." 

4.  The  manner  in  which  our  Lord  promises  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  farther  in  proof  that  he  performs  acts  peculiar 
to  the  Godhead.  He  speaks  of  "  sending  the  Spirit " 
in  the  language  of  one  who  had  an  original  right  and  an 
inherent  power  to  bestow  that  wondrous  gift  which  was 
to  impart  miraculous  energies,  and  heavenly  wisdom, 
comfort,  and  purity  to  human  minds.  Does  the  Father 
send  the  Spirit  ?  Christ  claims  the  same  power, — "  the 
Comforter,  whom  /  will  send  unto  you."  The  Spirit  is, 
on  this  account,  called  the  "  the  Spirit  of  Christ "  and 


88  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

"  the  Spirit  of  God."  Thus  the  giving  of  the  Spirit  is 
indifferently  ascribed  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Father ;  but 
when  that  gift  is  mediately  bestowed  by  the  Apostles,  no 
such  language  is  assumed  by  them  :  they  pray  to  Christ, 
and  to  the  Father  in  his  name,  and  he,  their  exalted 
Master,  sheds  forth  the  blessing — "therefore  being  by 
the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having  received  of 
the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath 
shed  forth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear." 

5.  Another  of  the  unquestionably  peculiar  acts  of 
God,  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  In  the  manifest  reason 
of  the  thing,  no  one  can  forgive  but  the  party  offended  ; 
and,  as  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law  of  God,  he, 
alone,  is  the  offended  party,  and  he  only,  therefore,  can 
forgive.  Mediately,  others  may  declare  his  pardoning 
acts,  or  the  conditions  on  which  he  determines  to  for- 
give ;  but,  authoritatively,  there  can  be  no  actual  for- 
giveness of  sins  against  God  but  by  God  himself.  But 
Christ  forgives  sin  authoritatively,  and  he  is,  therefore, 
God.  One  passage  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  prove 
this.  "  He  said  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  Son,  be  of 
good  cheer,  thy  sins  he  forgiven  thee.^^  The  scribes 
who  were  present  understood  that  he  did  this  authorita- 
tively, and  assumed,  in  this  case,  the  rights  of  Divinity. 
They  therefore  said,  among  themselves,  "This  man 
blasphemeth."  What,  then,  is  the  conduct  of  our 
Lord?  Does  he  admit  that  he  only  ministerially  declared, 
in  consequence  of  some  revelation,  that  God  had  for- 
given the  sins  of  the  paralytic  ?  On  the  contrary,  he 
works  a  miracle  to  prove  to  them  that  the  very  right 
which  they  disputed  was  vested  in  him,  that  he  had 
this  authority — "  but,  that  ye  may  knoav  that  the  Son 
of  man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,  then  saith 
he  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and 
go  into  thine  own  house." 

Such  were  the  acts  performed  by  our  Saviour,  in  the 
days  of  his  sojourn  on  earth,  and  which  he  is  represent- 
ed, by  his  inspired  Apostles,  to  be  still  constantly  per- 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  89 

forming,  or  as  having  the  power  to  perform.  If  any 
creature  is  capable  of  doing  the  same  mighty  works, 
then  is  all  distinction  between  created  finite  natures  and 
the  uncreated  Infinite  destroyed.  If  such  a  distinction, 
in  fact,  exists ;  if  neither  creation,  preservation,  nor 
salvation  be  possible' to  a  mere  creature,  we  have  seen 
that  they  are  possible  to  Christ,  because  he  actually 
creates,  preserves,  and  saves  ;  and  the  inevitable  con- 
clusion is,  THAT  HE  IS  VERY  GoD. WatSOU. 

V.  Jesus  Christ  is  eternal,  and  therefore  must  be 
God  ;  for  God  is  the  only  eternal  being.  The  eternity 
of  Christ  may  be  argued  in  the  first  place  from  the  in- 
troduction to  St.  John's  Gospel:  "In  the  beginning 
was  the  word,  and  the  word  was  with  God,  and  the 
word  was  God."  "  The  grammatical  construction  of 
this  passage,"  says  Drew,  "  evidently  imports  that  this 
word  was  in  existence  at  the  beginning.  He  does  not 
say  that  his  existence  commenced  at  the  beginning,  but 
that  in  the  beginning  was  the  word.  The  imperfect 
tense  of  the  verb  to  be,  which  is  here  used,  evidently 
denotes  that  he  existed  antecedently  to  the  beginning  ; 
and  in  a  comprehensive  expression  like  this  before  us, 
we  cannot  conceive  how  the  eternal  existence  of  Deity 
could  be  more  fully  expressed,  if  the  Apostle  had  di- 
rected our  views  to  that  subject. 

"  It  is  of  little  consequence  where  we  fix  the  period  of 
beginning.  Because  the  proposition  expresses  a  univer- 
sal affirmation,  which  includes  all.  If  we  fix  the  be- 
ginning at  the  creation  of  man,  the  word  was  then.  If 
we  fix  it  at  the  commencement  of  time,  the  word  then 
was  :  and  if  we  carry  back  our  views  to  the  commence- 
ment of  angelic  existence,  the  word  then  was.  For  in 
either  case,  '  In  the  beginning  was  the  word.' 

"  Now  that  which  was  in  existence  at  the  beginning, 
certainly  existed  before  the  beginning  ;  and  that  which 
existed  before  the  beginning,  must  be  without  beginning  ; 
and  that  which  was  without  beginning,  must  be  eter- 
nal." 

8* 


9\}  DIVINITY   OT    CHRIST^ 

2.  The  eternity  of  Christ  is  also  clearly  established 
by  the  fact  that  he  is  the  Creator,  or  first  cause  of  all 
things.  St.  John  says,  *'  All  things  were  made  by 
him  ;  and  without  him  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was 
made,"  John  i.  1.  And  the  Apostle  Paul  says,  CoL 
i.  16,  ''  For  by  him  were  all  things  created,  that  are  in 
heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whe- 
ther they  be  thrones  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or 
powers  :  all  things  were  created  by  him  and  for  him." 
It  is  here  affirmed  by  two  inspired  apostles  that  all 
things  w^ere  made  or  created  by  Christ,  and  if  all  things 
were  created  by  him,  he  was  certainly  before  any  thing 
was  created.  But  lest  this  general  expression,  "  all 
things,"  should  be  restricted  in  its  meaning,  the  Apostle 
Paul  adds  "  all  things  that  are  in  heaven  and  upon 
earth  ;"  and,  lest  the  invisible  spirits  in  heaven  should 
be  thought  to  be  excluded,  he  further  adds  "  things  visi- 
Me  and  things  invisible  f^  and,  lest  the  invisible  things 
should  be  understood  of  inferior  angels  or  spiritual  be- 
ings, and  the  high  and  glorious  beings  who  excel  in 
strength,  and  are,  in  Scripture,  invested  with  other  ele- 
vated properties,  should  be  excepted,  the  apostle  is  still 
more  particular,  and  adds  "  whether  thrones,  or  domin- 
ions, or  principalities,  or  powers  ;"  thereby  ascribing  the 
creation  of  every  thing,  whether  high  or  low,  within 
the  wide  spread  universe  of  God  to  Jesus  Christ.  But, 
as  above  remarked,  if  all  things  were  created  by  Christ^^ 
he  must  have  existed  before  any  thing  was  created  ;  and 
if  he  existed  before  any  thing  was  created,  it  is  evident 
that  he  was  not  created,  and  if  he  was  not  created,  he- 
must  be  self-existent,  and  therefore  eternal. 

3.  Christ  is  before  all  things.  Col.  i.  17:  "And  he 
is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist." 
^^  Now,"  as  Drew  remarks,  "  he  who  is  before  all  things, 
is  not  a  thing  ;  for  if  he  was,  he  could  not  be  before 
all  things,  unless  he  was  before  himself,  which  cannot 
possibly  be.  He,  therefore,  who  is  not  a  thing,  but  be- 
fore all  things,  must  be  without  beginning,  and  he  wh© 
exists  without  beginning,  must  be  eternal." 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  91 

4.  The  eternity  of  our  blessed  Saviour  is  also  clearly 
exhibited  in  the  following  words  of  the  Prophet  Isaiah  : 
"  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  Son  is  given,  his 
name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Councellor,  the  mighty 
God,  the  Everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace," 
Isaiah  ix.  6.  "  '  Everlasting  Father,'  in  this  text,  is  va- 
riously rendered  by  the  principal  orthodox  critics  ;  but 
every  rendering  is  in  consistency  with  the  application 
of  a  positive  eternity  to  the  Messiah,  of  which  this  is  a 
prediction.  Bishop  Loth  says,  '  The  Father  of  the 
everlasting  age.'  Bishop  Stock,  '  The  Father  of  eter- 
nity ;'  i.  e.  the  owner  of  it."  But,  if  he  is  the  Ever- 
lasting Father,  or  the  Father  of  the  everlasting  age,  the 
owner  of  eternity,  he  must  be  eternal. 

I  am,  however,  aware  that  our  opponents  endeavor 
to  urge  the  application  of  this  name  to  the  Messiah, 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  But  it  should  be 
remembered  that  the  Prophet  is  here  describing  the  na- 
ture of  the  Messiah,  and  therefore  gives  him  this  name 
(Everlasting  Father)  as  a  name  of  nature.  He  is  not 
describing  his  mode  of  existence  with  the  Father  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  but  his  essence  as  true  and  very  God. 
For  this  reason,  the  application  of  this  name  to  Jesus 
Christ,  by  no  means  militates  against  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  or  the  peculiar  relation  of  Christ  in  that 
Trinity  ;  but  establishes  and  confirms  it.  For,  if  Christ 
be  the  Everlasting  Father,  and  if  there  is  but  one  God, 
the  Father,  then  Christ  being  God,  that  divine  person 
who  is  usually  styled  the  Father,  must  be  of  one  essence 
with  Christ,  or  there  would  be  two  Gods.  But  if 
Christ  and  the  Father  are  of  one  essence,  and  the  Fa- 
ther be  eternal,  which  is  admitted  by  all,  then  Christ 
must  be  eternal  also. 

5.  The  eternity  of  Christ  appears  evident  from  the 
fact  that  he  claims  to  be  the  I  am  ;  a  title  by  which  Je- 
hovah declares  his  self-existence  and  eternity  to  Moses, 
by  saying,  Exod.  iii.  14,  "  I  am  that  I  am."  ''And 
our  Lord  appears  to  refer  to  the  same  passage,  and  cer- 


92  DIVINITY  OF    CHRIST. 

tainly  means  the  same  thing,  when  he  says,  John  vin. 

58,  *  Before  Abraham  was  I  am.'  In  these  last  words, 
we  see  the  eternity  of  Christ,  not  only  in  their  resem- 
blance, and  apparent  reference  to  those  words  of  Jeho- 
vah by  which  he  declares  his  eternal  nature,  but  also  in 
the  very  circumstances  in  which  they  were  spoken. 
Our  Lord  had  just  told  the  Jews,  verse  56,  '  Your  fa- 
ther Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day ;  and  he  saw  it, 
and  was  glad.'  By  which  the  Jews  understood  him  to 
mean  that  he  existed  when  Abraham  was  on  earth  ;  and 
to  which  they  replied,  verse  57,  '  Thou  art  not  fifty 
years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham.'  Then  our 
Lord  confirmed  what  they  had  understood  him  to  mean, 
Before  Abraham  was  I  am,  I  am  from  eternity.  I  am 
now,  and  I  was  with  Abraham,  and  he  acknowledged  me 
to  be  his  God,  and  desired  me  as  his  Saviour.  That 
the  Jews  understood  him  to  profess  that  he  was  the  eter- 
nal God,  and  that  they  meant  to  punish  him  for  supposed 
blasphemy  according  to  their  law,  is  evident  from  verse 

59,  '  Then  took  they  up  stones  to  cast  at  him.'  " — Hed- 
ding^s  Sermon  on  the  Deity  of  Christ.  But  does  our 
Saviour  correct  this  wrong  impression,  (for  wrong  it 
must  be  if  he  was  not  the  eternal  God,)  which  he  would 
have  done  if  they  had  been  mistaken  ?  "  No  !  to  have 
so  acted,  would  have  been  derogatory  to  his  dignity; 
and  injurious  to  their  interests.  He  actually  repeats 
his  claim  to  the  character.  He  actually  enforces  his 
pretensions,  to  a  supernatural  priority  of  existence.  He 
even  heightens  both.  He  mounts  up  far  beyond  Abra- 
ham. He  ascends  beyond  all  the  orders  of  creation. 
And  he  places  himself  with  God  at  the  head  of  the 
universe.  He  thus  arrogates  to  himself  all  that  high 
pitch  of  dignity,  which  the  Jews  expected  their  Mes- 
siah to  assume.  This  he  does  too  in  the  most  energetic 
manner,  that  his  simplicity  of  language,  so  natural  to 
inherent  greatness,  would  possibly  admit.  He  also  in- 
troduces what  he  says,  with  much  solemnity  in  the  form, 
and  with  more  in*the  repetition.     '  Verily,  verily,  I  say 


DIVINITY  OF    CHRIST.  93 

unto  you,'  he  cries,  ^Before  Abraham  was,  I  am/ 
He  says  not  of  himself,  as  he  says  of  Abraham,  '  Be- 
fore he  was,  I  was.'  This  indeed  would  have  been  suf- 
ficient, to  affirm  his  existence  previous  to  Abraham. 
But  it  would  not  have  been  sufficient,  to  declare  what 
he  now  meant  to  assert,  his  full  claim  to  the  majesty  of 
the  Messiah.  .He  therefore  drops  all  forms  of  language, 
that  could  be  accommodated  to  the  mere  creatures  of 
God.  He  arrests  one,  that  was  appropriate  to  the  God- 
head itself  '  Before  Abraham  was,'  or  still  more  pro- 
perly, '  Before  Abraham  was  made,'  he  says,  '  I  am.' 
He  thus  gives  himself  the  signature  of  uncreated  and 
continual  existence,  in  direct  opposition  to  contingent 
and  created.     He  says  of  himself. 

That  an  Eternal  now  forever  lasts, 

with  him.  He  attaches  to  himself  that  very  stamp  of 
eternity,  which  God  appropriates  to  his  Godhead  in 
the  Old  Testament,  and  from  which  an  Apostle  after- 
wards describes  Jesus  Christ  expressly  to  be  '  the  same 
yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever.'  Nor  did  the  Jews 
pretend  to  misunderstand  him  now.  They  could  not^ 
They  heard  him  directly  and  decisively  vindicating  the 
noblest  rights  of  their  Messiah,  and  the  highest  honors 
of  their  God,  to  himself.  They  considered  him  as  a 
mere  pretender  to  those.  They  therefore  looked  upon 
him,  as  a  blasphemous  arrogator  of  those.  '  Then  took 
they  up  stones,  to  cast  at  him'  as  a  blasphemer ;  as 
what  indeed  he  was  in  his  pretensions  to  be  God,  if  he 
had  not  been  in  reality  their  Messiah  and  their  God  in 
one.  But  he  instantly  proved  himself  to  their  very 
senses,  to  be  both  ;  by  exerting  the  energetic  powers  of 
his  Godhead,  upon  them.  For  he  '  hid  himself ;  and 
went  out  of  the  temple,  going  through  the  midst  of 
them;  and  so  passed  by.'  " — WJiitaJcer. 

6.  Christ  is  styled  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  begin- 
ning and  the  end,  the  first  and  the  last.  Now,  by  these 
very  titles  is  the  eternity  of  God  express  in  Isaiah  xliv. 


94  DIVINITY  OF    CHRIST. 

6 :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  the  King  of  Israel,  and  his 
Redeemer  the  Lord  of  hosts ;  I  am  the  first,  and  I  am 
the  last ;  and  besides  me  there  is  no  God."  The  same 
sentiment  is  expressed,  though  in  different  words,  in 
Isaiah  xliii.  10  :  "  That  ye  may  know  and  believe  me, 
and  understand  that  I  am  he :  before  me  there  was  no 
God  formed,  neither  shall  there  be  after  me.  I,  even  I, 
am  the  Lord ;  and  besides  me  there  is  no  Saviour." 
But,  in  Rev.  i.  II,  Christ  is  expressly  styled  the  first 
and  the  last.  Therefore,  if  the  passage  quoted  from 
Isaiah  proves  the  eternity  of  God,  which  is  admitted  by 
all ;  then  the  one  from  Revelation  proves  the  eternity 
of  Christ :  for  the  same  titles  are  there  assumed  by  him 
as  absolutely  and  as  explicitly  as  they  are  by  God  in 
Isaiah  ;  and  they  clearly  affirm  that  the  being  to  whom 
they  are  applied  had  no  beginning,  and  will  have  no 
end. 

He  is  also  said,  in  Rev.  i.  8,  to  be  the  Alpha  and 
Omega,  that  is  from  eternity  to  eternity.  "  This  mode 
of  speech  is  borrowed  from  the  Jews,  who  express  the 
whole  compass  of  things  by  aleph  and  tau ;  the  first 
and  last  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet :  but  as  St. 
John  was  writing  in  Greek,  he  accommodates  the  whole 
to  the  Greek  alphabet,  of  which  Alpha  and  Omega  are 
the  first  and  last  letters.  With  the  Rabbins,  mealeph 
vead  tau,  from  aleph  to  tau,  expressed  the  whole  of  a 
matter,  from  the  beginning  to  the  endJ^ — (ClarWs 
notes  on  Rev,  i.  8.)  Therefore,  Alpha  and  Omega,  in 
the  text  under  consideration,  must  express  the  whole  of 
eternity  ;  consequently,  Christ  must  be  from  eternity  to 
eternity;  that  is,  he  must  bean  eternal  self-existent 
being. 

But  it  is  objected  by  our  opponents,  that  if  these  titles, 
Alpha  and  Omega,  first  and  last,  &:c.,  prove  the  eter- 
nity of  Christ,  or  that  he  existed  before  every  other  be- 
ing, it  will  also  prove  that  he  will  exist  after  every  other 
being  ;  which  would  argue  the  annihilation  of  every  be» 
ing  in  the  universe,  except  God. 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  95 

In  answer  to  this,  we  would  remark,  that  the  same 
reasoning  would,  with  the  same  propriety,  disprove  the 
eternity  of  God  the  Father ;  for  it  is  expressly  said, 
Isah.  xliv.  10,  that  he  is  the^r^^  and  the  last ;  but  this, 
according  to  the  above  reasoning,  cannot  be ;  that  is, 
God  cannot  be  an  eternal  self-existent  being,  for  if  he  is, 
he  must  exist  after  all  other  beings  ;  but  if  he  exists 
after  all  other  beings,  then  all  other  beings  must  be  an- 
nihilated. But  all  other  beings  will  not  be  annihilated, 
therefore  God  cannot  be  the  first  and  last,  or  an  eternal 
Being,  which  is  the  import  of  these  terms.  Consequent- 
ly, according  to  this  reasoning  of  our  opponents,  God 
will  cease  to  exist,  or  else  every  other  being  in  the  uni- 
verse will  come  to  an  end,  and  if  Christ  is  not  God,  he 
must  be  annihilated  with  the  rest.  Our  opponents, 
therefore,  in  order  to  sustain  their  position  that  the 
above  mentioned  titles  do  not  prove  the  eternity  of 
Christ,  have  either  to  annihilate  God,  or  every  other 
being  in  the  universe  ;  consequently  the  world  and  the 
world's  Saviour. 

We  would,  however,  remark,  before  we  dismiss  this 
subject,  that,  by  these  titles,  Aljpha  and  Omega,  first 
and  last,  &:c.,  being  applied  to  Christ,  we  are  not  to 
suppose  that  he  will  be  the  last  being  in  existence,  or 
that  angels  and  men  will  ever  cease  to  exist ;  but  we 
are  to  understand  them  as  expressive  of  the  whole  of 
eternity  ;  for  as  the  whole  compass  of  things  are  embra- 
ced between  x\\q  first  and  the  last,  or  as  the  alphabet  is 
included  within  Alpha  and  Omega,  so  the  whole  of 
eternity  is  included  in  the  existence  of  Jesus  Christ. 

7.  "  Eternal  Life,  when  used  as  it  is  frequently  in 
St.  John's  Epistles,  is  also  a  clear  designation  of  the 
eternity  of  our  Saviour.  '  For  the  life  was  manifest- 
ed, and  we  have  seen  it,  and  bear  witness,  and  show 
unto  you  that  eternal  life,  which  was  with  the  Father, 
and  was  manifest  unto  us.'  1  John  i.  2.  In  the  first 
clause  of  this  text,  Christ  is  called  the  life ;  he  is  then 
said  to  be  '  eternal  f  and,  that  no  mistake  should  arise, 


96  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

the  Apostle  endeavors  to  convince  us  that  he  designed 
to  declare  the  eternal  existence  of  Christ,  he  shows  that 
he  ascribes  eternity  to  him  in  the  pre-existent  state, 
*  that  eternal  life  which  was  with  the  Father,  and  with 
him  before  he  was  manifested'  to  men." — Watson. 
The  eternal  underived  existence  of  our  Saviour  could 
not  be  more  unequivocally  expressed. 

8.  The  eternity  of  Christ  is  also  established  by  the 
testimony  of  Solomon.  Proverbs  viii.  22,  23  :  "  The 
Lord  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  way,  before 
his  works  of  old.  I  was  set  up  from  everlasting,  from 
beginning,  or  ever  the  earth  was."  That  this  passage 
refers  to  Christ,  is  evident  from  several  considerations. 

1.  It  is  admitted  by  our  opponents.  (See  Millard^ s 
True  Messiah,  pp.  91.^ 

2.  Personal  acts  are  here  ascribed  to  wisdom  spoken 
of  in  this  chapter.  He  is  represented  as  standing,  and 
crying,  and  performing  various  other  acts  which  clearly 
denote  personality. 

3.  He  is  said  to  possess  wisdom.  But  it  would  be 
absurd  to  say  of  wisdom,  as  an  attribute,  that  it  pos- 
sessed wisdom  and  sound  understanding.  Therefore 
this  passage  must  refer  to  Christ  the  personal  wisdom  of 
God.  It  may,  therefore,  be  considered  as  a  strong  proof 
in  favor  of  his  eternity  ;  for  it  affirms  of  him  that  he  was 
set  up  from  everlasting,  from  the  beginning,  or  ever  the 
earth  was  ;  and  that  Jehovah  possessed  him  in  the  be- 
ginning of  his  way,  before  his  works  of  old.  Now  if 
the  Lord  possessed  him  in  the  beginning  of  his  way,  it 
is  evident  that  he  must  be  eternal,  or  else  that  the  ways 
of  God  are  not  eternal. 

Again,  if  the  Lord  possessed  him  before  his  works 
of  old,  or  his  most  ancient  works,  then  he  is  not  one  of 
his  works  ;  consequently,  he  cannot  be  created  ;  and  if 
not  created,  he  must  be  an  eternal  self-existent  being. 
But  finally,  in  order  to  render  the  doctrine  still  more 
certain,  the  text  affirms  that  he  was  set  up  from  ever- 
lasting, or  from  eternity,  and  therefore  he  must  be  eter- 
nal. 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  97 

9.  "  This  doctrine  is  most  unequivocally  taught  in  the 
prophecy  of  Micah,  chap.  v.  2  :  '  But  thou,  Bethlehem 
Ephrata,  though  thou  be  little  among  the  thousands  of 
Judah,  yet  out  of  thee  shall  come  forth  unto  me  that  is  to 
be  Ruler  in  Israel ;  whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of 
old,  from  everlasting.'  This  passage  must  ever  stand 
as  an  irrefutable  proof  of  the  eternity  of  our  adorable 
Saviour;  for  he  is,  here  expressly  declared  to  be  from 
everlasting,  as  it  is  rendered  by  the  LXX.  and  the  Vul- 
gate, and  critics  generally,  '  from  the  days  of  eternity  J 
So  decisive  is  this  text  in  favor  of  the  eternity  of  Christ, 
that  Unitarians  are  under  the  necessity  of  resorting  to 
the  most  violent  criticism  in  order  to  evade  its  force." — 
(Watson.)  But  the  only  ground  they  occupy  which 
has  any  show  of  plausibility  is,  that  the  word  everlasting 
does  not  imply  endless  duration.  To  support  this,  it  is 
said  that  it  is  frequently  applied  to  things  which  must 
necessarily  come  to  an  end,  as  the  everlasting  hills. 

In  reply  to  this,  we  would  remark, 

1.  That  in  all  such  cases  as  the  one  given  above 
when  the  term  everlasting  is  applied  to  earthly  objects, 
it  is  always  limited  by  the  noun  which  follows  it.  But 
what  is  there  to  limit  it  in  the  text  under  consideration  ? 
The  noun  to  be  supplied  (if  a  noun  is  supplied  at  all,) 
is  duration.  But  if  this  was  supplied  the  text  would 
read,  ^' whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from 
everlasting  duration."  This  reading,  however,  instead 
of  limiting  the  word  everlasting,  in  the  text  under  con- 
sideration, renders  it,  if  possible,  still  more  expressive 
of  the  eternity  of  the  Saviour  ;  for  duration  is  certainly 
endless. 

2.  If  being  from  everlasting  does  not  prove  Christ  to 
be  eternal,  then  the  Bible  fails  to  express  the  eternity  of 
God  the  Father ;  for  this  is  the  very  language  by  which 
the  eternity  of  the  Father  is  declared.  Psalms  xc.  2 : 
*^From  everlasting  to  everlasting  thou  art  God ;"  and 
Hab.  i.  12:  "Art  thou  not  from  everlasting.  O  Lord, 
my  God?" 

9 


98  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

There  is,  perhaps,  no  language  in  Scripture  more  ex- 
pressive of  the  eternal  existence  of  God  than  the  lan- 
guage just  quoted.  But  if  the  passage  from  Micah 
does  not  prove  the  eternity  of  Christ,  these  must  forever 
fail  of  proving  the  eternity  of  the  Father ;  for  if  the 
being  from  everlasting  does  not  prove  Christ  to  be  eter- 
nal, then  the  being  from  everlasting  cannot  prove  the 
Father  to  be  eternal.  If,  however,  it  does  prove  the 
Father  to  be  eternal,  then  the  Son  must  be  eternal  also. 
Our  opponents  are,  therefore,  under  the  necessity  of  ad- 
mitting the  eternal  existence  of  Christ,  or  of  giving  up 
the  idea  that  the  Scriptures  teach  the  eternity  of  God 
the  Father. 

Having,  as  we  consider,  fully  established  the  doc- 
trine of  the  eternal  pre~existence  of  our  Saviour,  a 
doctrine  which  is  inseparably  connected  with  the  gospel 
system,  and  upon  the  truth  of  which  hangs  the  hope  of 
a  fallen  world,  w^e  shall  pass  to  notice  an  objection  which 
is  very  clamorously  urged  against  it.  This  objection  is 
founded  upon  the  sonship  of  Christ.  "  It  is  said  that 
if  Christ  be  the  Son  of  God,  he  cannot  be  eternal ;  for 
son  implies  a  father  ;  and  father  implies,  in  reference  to 
the  son,  precedency  in  time.  Again,  father  and  son 
imply  the  idea  of  generation  ;  and  generation  implies  a 
time  in  which  it  was  effected,  and  a  time  antecedent  to 
that  in  which  it  was  effected.  Consequently,  as  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  he  must  have  been  generated 
or  begotten,  and  therefore  cannot  be  eternal.  Again,  it 
is  very  triumphantly  asked,  how  can  a  son  be  as  old  as 
his  father  ? 

However  plausible  this  objection  may  appear  to  su- 
perficial thinkers,  it  is  presumed  that  when  fairly  exam- 
ined it  will  appear,  to  the  candid  and  reflecting  mind, 
to  possess  but  very  little  weight,  especially  when  con- 
trasted with  the  numerous  and  overwhelming  arguments 
to  which  it  stands  opposed  ;  for, 

1 .  If  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  and  properly  the  Son  of 
God,  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term  son,  (a 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  99 

doctrine  for  which  many  of  our  opponents  contend,)  he 
certainly  must  partake  of  the  nature  of  God ;  for  it  is 
evident  that  every  son  partakes  of  the  nature  of  his 
father.  But  if  he  partakes  of  the  nature  of  God,  he 
must  certainly  be  eternal,  or  else  the  Divine  nature  is 
not  eternal. 

2.  If  Jesus  Christ  is  properly  the  Son  of  God  in  his 
Divine  nature,  he  must  not  only  partake  of  the  same 
nature  of  his  Father,  but  he  must  also  have  eternally 
existed  as  the  Son,  or  the  Divine  nature  must  have 
changed ;  for  upon  the  supposition  that  the  Son  is  not 
eternal,  there  must  have  been  a  period  when  the  Divine 
nature  existed  in  the  person  of  the  Father  only.  But 
now  it  exists  in  the  Father  and  the  Son,  consequently, 
it  must  have  changed. 

We  therefore  see  that  to  deny  the  eternal  pre-exist- 
ence  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  at  the  same  time  hold  that 
he  is  truly  and  properly  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  common 
acceptation  of  that  term,  is,  in  fact,  to  deny  the  eternity 
of  God  the  Father,  and  contend  for  the  mutability  of 
the  Divine  nature. 

There  is  no  way  for  our  opponents  to  avoid  these  ir- 
resistable  conclusions,  which  pierce  the  very  vitals  of 
their  theology,  but  by  admitting  Christ  to  be  eternal,  or 
by  supposing  the  term  Son  is  applied  to  him  in  a  re- 
stricted and  peculiar  sense.  If  they  say  that  Christ  is 
eternal,  they  yield  the  point  for  which  we  contend.  If 
they  say  that  the  term  Son  is  applied  to  him  in  a  re- 
stricted and  peculiar  sense,  they  then  give  up  the  whole 
force  of  their  objection.  For  if  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God  in  a  peculiar  sense,  and  not  in  the  sense  in 
which  the  term  son  commonly  imports,  his  being  called 
the  Son  of  God  in  that  peculiar  sense  can  foiin  no  ob- 
jection to  his  eternity.  Consequently,  the  eternity  of 
Christ  remains  with  all  its  force  against  the  Unitarian 
hypothesis,  proving,  beyond  all  possibility  of  conti'a- 
diction,  that  he  is  God ;  for  God  is  the  only  eternal 
being. 


100  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

VI.  Having  shown  that  Jesus  Christ  is  an  eternal 
unoriginated  being,  we  now  propose  proving  that  he  is 
immutable,  which  is  another  distinguishing  attribute  of 
God. 

1.  We  argue  his  immutabihty  from  his  eternity. 
That  Jesus  Christ  is  eternal  has  been  abundantly  pro- 
ved ;  consequently,  to  suppose  that  he  is  subject  to 
change  is  to  suppose  that  an  eternal  being  may  change ; 
and  to  suppose  that  an  eternal  can  change  is  to  suppose 
that  God  may  change.  But  God  cannot  change  ;  for 
he  expressly  says  in  Malachi  iii. 6,  "I  am  the  Lord  ;  I 
change  not ;"  and  if  God  cannot  change,  as  he  is  the 
only  eternal  being,  then  an  eternal  being  cannot  change. 
But  Jesus  Christ  is  eternal,  therefore  he  must  be  immu- 
table and  absolutely  God. 

2.  The  immutability  of  Christ  appears  from  his  Di- 
vinity. That  he  is  a  Divine  person  is  admitted  by  our 
opponents.  Mr.  Millard,  in  his  work  entitled  the  True 
Messiah,  page  114,  says,  "As  Christ  proceeded  forth 
from  God,  and  was  made  flesh,  he  is  far  superior  to  hu- 
man, and  is  divine."  Consequently,  in  founding  an 
argument  in  favor  of  his  immutability,  upon  his  Divini- 
ty, when  it  is  so  clearly  admitted,  cannot  be  considered 
as  begging  the  question,  or  as  assuming  more  than  what 
is  granted.  If,  however,  he  is  Divine,  it  is  evident  that 
he  must  be  immutable,  unless  we  suppose  that  a  Divine 
being  can  change.  But  if  a  Divine  being  can  change, 
then  we  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  God  is  a  changea- 
ble being.  But  it  is  admitted  by  all  that  God  is  un- 
changeable, therefore  Divinity  cannot  change ;  and  if 
Divinity  cannot  change,  and  Christ  be  a  Divine  person, 
then  he  cannot  change,  but  must  be  immutable.  There 
is  no  way  of  escaping  the  force  of  this  conclusion,  but 
by  saying  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  Divinity,  a  doc- 
trine which  is  wholly  unsupported  by  Scripture. 

3.  It  is  contended  by  our  opponents  that  Christ  is  the 
proper  Son  of  God,  consequently,  as  we  have  already 
remarked,  he  must  partake  of  the  nature  of  God,  for 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  101 

every  Son  partakes  of  the  nature  of  his  father.  This 
is  also  admitted  by  Mr.  Millard,  in  the  work  above 
mentioned,  page  112:  "He  partook  of  his  Father ;" 
and  on  page  113  he  says,  "that  the  Son  of  God  par- 
took of,  or  proceeded  forth  from  God  his  father,  is  per- 
fectly consistent  with  Scripture."  But  if  he  partook  of 
the  nature  of  his  Father,  or,  as  Mr.  M.  has  it,  "  of  his 
Father,"  he  must  be  as  unchangeable  as  his  Father. 
Again,  if  he  "  partook  of  God  "  he  must  be  a  part  of 
God,  and  therefore  of  the  same  essence  of  his  Father ; 
consequently  he  must  be  immutable,  or  the  very  nature 
of  God  is  subject  to  change  ;  and  if  God  is  changeable 
he  is  not  a  perfect  or  infinite  being. 

4.  If  Christ  is  not  immutable,  what  confidence  have 
we  to  trust  in  him  as  a  Saviour  ?  Notwithstanding  he 
has  poured  forth  his  blood  for  us  upon  the  cross,  rose  for 
our  justification,  and  is  now  our  Mediator  and  interces- 
sor at  the  bar  of  offended  justice,  yet,  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  he  is  mutable,  he  may  change,  and  intercede 
for  man  no  longer,  and  that  too  without  the  noncompli- 
ance with  any  of  the  conditions  of  the  gospel  on  the 
part  of  man  ;  or  he  may  change  the  entire  plan  of  sal- 
vation, alter  the  conditions  of  the  gospel,  and  leave  us 
without  a  knowledge  of  the  conditions  upon  which  he 
*will  finally  be  pleased  to  save  us.  Yea,  upon  the  sup- 
position that  he  is  not  immutable,  but  mutable  and 
changeable,  he  may  finally  become  a  sinner  himself, 
and  man  be  left  without  a  mediator,  without  an  inter- 
cessor, and  without  a  Saviour.  Who,  then,  would  dare 
to  trust  their  hopes  of  heaven  on  Jesus  Christ,  if  he  is 
not  immutable  ? 

5.  The  immutability  of  Christ  is  plainly  taught  in 
the  Sacred  Scriptures.  Paul,  in  his  letter  to  the  He- 
brews xiii.  8,  uses  the  following  language :  "  Jesus 
Christ,  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever."  Here 
immutability  and  eternity,  which  is  inseparably  con- 
nected with  it,  are  both  ascribed  to  Christ.  But  im- 
mutability is  an  attribute  peculiar  to  Jehovah.     Mai.  iii. 

9# 


102  DIVINITY  OF    CHRIST, 

6  :  ''  For  I  am  the  Lord,  and  change  not ;  therefore  je 
sons  of  Jacob  are  not  consumed."  "All  creatures,'^ 
says  Bishop  Hedding,  "  are  subject  to  change,  but 
Christ  is  always  the  same,"  "  the  same  yesterday,  to- 
day and  forever, ^^  therefore  he  is  not  a  mere  creature, 
but  he  is  that  very  immutable  being  who  says,  "  I 
change  not.^^ 

That  the  phrase  ''  the  same  yesterday,  to-day  and  for- 
ever'^ is  expressive  of  immutability,  needs  no  proof; 
therefore  Jesus  Christ  is  immutable  and  eternal. 

"A  similar  and  most  solemn  description  of  eternity 
and  immutabihty  occurs  in  Heb.  i.  10 — 12:  'Thou, 
Lord,  in  the  beginning  has  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
earth  :  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thy  hands. 
They  shall  perish  ;  but  thou  remainest :  and  they  shall 
wax  old  as  doth  a  garment ;  and  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou 
fold  them  up,  and  they  shall  he  changed ;  but  thou  art 
the  same,  and  thy  years  shall  not  fail.'  These  words 
are  quoted  from  Pslam  cii.,  which  all  acknowledge  to 
be  a  lofty  description  of  the  eternity  of  God.  They 
are  here  applied  to  Christ ;  and  of  him  they  affirm  that 
he  was  before  the  material  universe — that  it  was  created 
by  him — that  he  has  absolute  power  over  it — that  he 
will  destroy  it — that  he  will  do  this  with  infinite  ease, 
as  one  who  folds  up  a  vesture  ;  and  that,  amidst  the  de- 
cay and  changes  of  material  things,  he  remains  the 
same.  The  immutability  here  ascribed  to  Christ  is  not, 
however,  that  of  a  created  Spirit,  which  will  remain 
when  the  material  universe  is  destroyed  ;  for  then  there 
would  be  nothing  proper  to  Christ  in  the  text ;  nothing 
but  in  which  angels  and  men  participate  with  him,  and 
the  words  would  be  deprived  of  all  meaning.  His  im- 
mutability and  duration  are  peculiar,  and  a  contrast  is 
implied  between  his  existence  and  that  of  all  created 
things.  They  are  dependent,  he  is  independent  and  we- 
cessary,^'  (Watson,)  and  therefore  he  must  be  an  eter- 
nal immutable  being. 

''  Thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years  shall  not  faiL" 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  103 

These  words  were  undoubtedly  spoken  by  the  Psalm- 
ist of  the  true  God ;  the  Prophets  having  so  often 
imformed  us  that  he  only  made  the  heavens  and 
and  the  earth  ;  besides,  the  preceding  words  cannot  be 
understood  of  any  but  Jehovah.  Either,  then,  the 
inspired  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  did  not 
understand  the  passage  he  produced,  or  he  knew  that  the 
immutable  God  was  described  by  it ;  for  the  sublime 
characters  contained  in  it  are  so  peculiar  to  him  that 
there  is  no  instance  of  the  Prophets  applying  them  to 
any  other.  But  the  Apostle,  in  the  passage  quoted 
from  Hebrews,  applies  them  to  Jesus  Christ,  therefore 
he  must  be  the  immutable  and  eternal  God. 

But  it  is  objected  to  the  immutability  of  Christ,  that 
he  grew  in  stature,  that  he  increased  in  wisdom  and 
knowledge,  and  underwent  various  other  changes,  all 
of  which  are  said  to  be  opposed  to  his  immutability.  It 
should,  however,  be  remembered  that  he  was  man  as 
well  as  God  ;  or,  as  it  is  finely  expressed  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Methodist  Church,  in  him  were  united 
''two  whole  and  perfect  natures,  that  is  to  say,  the 
Godhead  and  manhood."  (See  DiscijpUne.)  This  union 
of  the  human  and  Divine  nature  in  the  person  of  Je- 
sus Christ  is  so  clearly  taught  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
that  it  will  not  be  necessary,  in  this  place,  to  say  much 
in  its  defence,  especially  as  we  intend  to  dwell  more  ful- 
ly upon  this  point  in  another  part  of  this  work.  We  will, 
however,  quote  a  few  passages  of  Scripture  which,  from 
their  explicitness,  must  establish  both  the  Divinity  and 
humanity  of  Christ,  at  least  in  the  minds  of  those  who 
are  not  so  strongly  attached  to  their  preconceived  opin- 
ions as  to  be  incapable  of  feeling  the  force  of  gospel 
truth.  In  Heb.  ii.  14,  the  Apostle,  speaking  of  Christ, 
says,  "  Forasmuch,  then,  as  the  children  are  partakers 
of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself,  likewise,  took  part 
of  the  same."  Here  the  Divine  nature  is  plainly  re- 
cognized as  taking  upon  it  flesh  and  blood,  or  human 
nature.     But  lest  it  should  be  said  that  he  took  upon 


104  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

him  the  physical  and  not  the  intellectual  part  of  our 
nature,  the  Apostle  adds,  verse  16,  "  For  verily  he  took 
not  upon  him  the  nature  of  angels,  but  he  took  upon 
him  the  seed  of  Abraham^  Therefore  he  mij^St  have 
possessed  both  a  human  soul  and  body,  or  els6  the  seed 
of  Abraham  did  not. 

But  if  the  seed  of  Abraham  (the  Jews)  did  possess 
human  souls  and  bodies,  Jesus  Christ  must  have  pos- 
sessed the  same  ;  consequently,  he  was  a  perfect  man, 
and  as  such  he  passed  through  the  various  changes  above 
mentioned  while  in  his  Divine  nature  he  remains  the 
same,  the  immutable  the  unchangeable  God. 

Unless  Unitarians  are  willing  to  admit  this,  they  must 
not  only  deny  that  the  seed  of  Abraham  possessed  a 
human  nature,  but  they  must  also  deny  that  the  Bible 
is  the  word  of  God,  for  in  one  place  it  says  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  "  the  same  yesterday,  to-day  and  forever," 
while  in  others  it  represents  him  as  passing  through  va- 
rious changes  ;  both  of  which  cannot  be  true,  unless  the 
union  of  two  natures  in  the  person  of  Christ  be  admit- 
ted ;  therefore,  upon  the  theory  of  our  opponents,  which 
denies  this  union,  the  Bible  must  be  contradictory  and 
false. 

VII.  To  these  essential  attributes  of  Deity,  to  be 
without  beginning  and  without  change,  is  added  that  of 
being  extended  through  all  space.  He  is  not  only  im- 
mutable and  eternal,  but  omnipresent.  He  therefore 
declares  himself  to  be  in  heaven  and  upon  earth  at  the 
same  time.  1  John  iii.  13  :  "  No  man  hath  ascended 
up  to  heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven, 
even  the  son  of  man  which  is  in  heaven."  In  this 
passage,  "  our  Lord  probably  designed  to  correct  a  false 
notion  among  the  Jews,  viz.  that  Moses  had  to  ascend 
to  heaven  in  order  to  get  the  Law.  It  is  not  Moses 
who  is  to  be  heard  now,  but  Jesus ;  Moses  did  not  as- 
cend to  heaven,  but  the  son  of  man  is  come  down  from 
heaven  to  reveal  the  divine  will.  And  lest  a  wrong 
moaning  should  be  taken  from  the  foregoing  expression, 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  105 

and  it  should  be  imagined  that  in  order  to  manifest  him- 
self upon  earth,  he  must  necessarily  leave  heaven  ;  our 
blessed  Lord  qualified  it  by  saying,  '  the  son  of  man 
which  is  in  heaven.'  Showing  that  he  was  in  heaven 
and  upon  earth  at  the  same  time ;  pointing  out  by  this, 
the  ubiquity  or  omnipresence  of  his  nature  :  a  charac- 
ter essentially  belonging  to  God ;  for  no  being  can  pos- 
sibly exist  in  more  places  than  one  at  the  same  time,  but 
He  who  Jills  the  heavens  and  the  earths — (Claris.) 
But  according  to  the  above  passage,  Jesus  Christ  did 
exist  in  more  than  one  place  at  the  same  time ;  for  he 
was  in  heaven  while  upon  earth.  Therefore,  Jesus 
Christ  must  be  the  omnipresent  God. 

2.  The  omnipresence  of  Christ  is  most  clearly  taught 
in  Matth.  xviii.  20 :  "  For  where  two  or  three  are  ga- 
thered in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them.'* 
Here  our  Saviour  most  expressly  promises  to  be  with 
his  children  wherever  they  shall  be  assembled  in  his 
name.  But  this  is  a  promise  which  can  only  be  ful- 
filled by  an  omnipresent  being :  for  the  children  of 
God  are  assembled  in  various  places  at  the  same  time ; 
and  if  Christ  redeems  his  promise,  if  he  is  wherever 
they  are  assembled,  he  must  be  at  the  same  moment  in 
all  these  different  places  ;  consequently,  he  must  be  in 
Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  and  America,  yea,  in  the  various 
Islands  of  the  Sea,  and  wherever  there  is  an  assembly 
of  his  saints,  at  the  same  time.  No  being,  however^ 
who  is  not  omnipresent,  can  be  in  more  than  one  place 
at  once.  We  must,  therefore,  conclude  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  omnipresent,  or  that  he  has  not  the  ability  to 
perform  his  promise. 

But  it  is  contended  by  some  that  this  promise  is  to  be 
limited  to  the  apostolic  age.  But  were  this  granted, 
what  would  the  concession  avail  ?  In  the  apostolic 
age,  the  disciples  met  in  the  name  of  their  Lord  many 
times  in  the  week,  and  in  innumerable  parts  of  the 
world  at  the  same  time,  in  Judea,  Asia  Minor,  Europe, 
fitc.     He,  therefore,  who  could  be  "in  the  midst  of 


106  DIVINITY  OF    CHRIST. 

them,^'  even  in  the  apostles'  day,  whenever  and  wherev- 
er they  assembled,  must  be  omnipresent. 

To  say  that  Christ  is  in  the  midst  of  our  religious  as- 
semblies ''  by  his  Spirit,"  is  not  sufficient.  "  For  if  the 
Spirit  intended  be  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  Christ  must  cer- 
tainly be  omnipresent ;  because  that  Spirit  is  present, 
with  devout  worshippers,  in  all  places  at  the  same  time. 
But  that  Jesus  is  omnipresent,  our  opponents  will  not 
allow.  The  Spirit  in  question,  therefore,  must  be  that 
of  the  Father,  and  not  of  Christ :  consequently,  not  our 
Lord,  but  the  Divine  Father,  is  present  in  our  assem- 
blies," (Abbadie)  whereas,  it  is  Christ  who  made  the 
promise  contained  in  the  text  under  consideration,  and 
who  promises  to  be  with  his  people. 

3.  "At  the  very  moment  of  his  ascension,  that  is, 
just  when,  as  to  his  bodily  presence,  he  was  leaving  his 
disciples,  he  promises  still  to  be  with  them,  and  calls 
tlieir  attention  to  this  promise  by  an  emphatic  particle," 
(Watson)  ''And  Lo  I  am  with  you  always,  even  to 
die  end  of  the  world."  Now  I  ask  if  Christ  is  able  to 
fulfill  this  promise  which  for  eighteen  hundred  years  has 
been  as  an  anchor  to  his  ministering  servants,  support- 
ing them  in  all  their  trials  and  temptations,  encouraging 
them  to  persevere  in  the  discharge  of  duty  amidst  the 
most  discouraging  and  trying  circumstances,  enabling 
them  to  rejoice  while  in  the  dungeon  or  upon  the  rack, 
and  finally  to  triumph  in  a  martyr's  death  ?  If  he  is,  he 
must  be  omnipresent ;  for  his  ministers  are  now  lifting 
the  standard  of  the  cross  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe. 

"From  Greenland's  icy  mountains, 
From  India's  coral  strand, 
Where  Afric's  sunny  fountains 
Roll  down  their  golden  sand," 

they  are  heard  offering  salvation  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
to  a  lost  and  ruined  world.  And  wherever  they  are  to 
be  found  preaching  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  whether 
in  the  consecrated  sanctuary,  reared  by  the  hand  of  ci- 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  107 

vilization,  or  in  the  savage  wigwam,  whether  under  the 
scorching  sun  of  the  torrid  zone,  or  in  the  frozen  regions 
of  the  poles,  Jesus  is  always  with  them,  and  has  promis- 
ed to  be  with  them  to  the  end  of  time.  Therefore,  he 
must  be  omnipresent ;  for  no  being  who  is  not  omnipre- 
sent can  be  in  more  than  one  place  at  the  same  time. 

It  is,  however,  contended  that  the  presence,  referred 
to  in  this  promise,  is  a  spiritual  presence,  and  that  it 
was  confined  to  the  apostles  previous  to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  or  that  it  was  the  miraculous  power  which 
the  apostles  possessed  before  this  period.  ''  Let  even 
this  be  allowed,  though  it  is  a  very  partial  view  of  the 
promise  ;  then  if  till  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the 
apostles  were  '  always,'  at  all  times,  able  to  work  mira- 
cles, the  power  to  enable  them  to  effect  these  wonders, 
must  '  always,'  and  in  all  places,  have  been  present  with 
them  ;  and  if  that  was  not  a  human  endowment,  if  a 
power  superior  to  that  of  man  were  requisite  for  the  per- 
formance of  the  miracles,  and  that  power  was  the  pow- 
er of  Christ,  then  he  was  really,  though  spiritually,  pre- 
sent with  them,  unless  the  attribute  of  power  can  be 
separated  from  its  subject,  and  the  power  of  Christ  be 
where  he  himself  is  not.  This,  however,  is  a  low  view 
of  the  import  of  the  promise,  '  Lo,  I  am  with  you,' 
which,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  signifies 
to  be  present  with  any  one,  to  help,  comfort,  and  suc- 
cor him." — (Watson.)  We  therefore  see  that  to  veri- 
fy this  promise,  even  to  the  apostles,  our  Saviour  must 
be  omnipresent. 

4.  The  omnipresence  of  our  Saviour  is,  also,  clearly 
established  by  the  fact  that  he  is  the  preserver  of  all 
things.  2  Pet.  iii.  7 :  "  But  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,  which  are  now,  by  the  same  word  are  kept  in 
store,  reserved  unto  fii'e  against  the  day  of  Judgment 
and  perdition  of  ungodly  men."  Now,  if  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  are  kept  in  store  or  reserved  unto  fire  by 
the  word,  which  is  Christ,  they  must  be  preserved  by 
him,*and  if  they  are  preserved  by  him,  he  must  extend 


108  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

through  them  all  and  fill  them  with  his  immediate  pre- 
sence ;  unless  we  can  suppose  that  his  power  can  be  ex- 
erted in  the  preservation  of  the  heavens  and  earth,  in- 
cluding the  whole  planetary  system,  when  entirely  sep- 
arate from  him. 

Again,  it  is  said,  in  Col.  i.  17,  that,  "  by  him  all 
things  consist."  This,  indeed,  necessarily  follows  from 
what  the  Apostle  affirms  of  him  in  the  preceding  verse, 
viz.  that  he  created  all  things.  For,  as  all  things  were 
derived  from  him,  as  their  cause,  so  all  things  must  con- 
sist, or  be  preserved  by  him,  as  the  effect  subsists  by 
and  through  its  cause.  The  Apostle  then,  here,  not  on- 
ly attributes  the  creation,  but  the  conservation  of  all 
things  to  Christ ;  but  to  preserve  them,  his  presence 
must  be  co-extensive  with  them,  and  thus  the  universe 
of  matter  and  created  spirits,  heaven  and  earth,  must  be 
filled  with  his  power  and  presence.  This  short  sen- 
tence, "  By  him  all  things  consist,"  implies  that  our 
Lord's  presence  extends  through  every  part  of  the  cre- 
ation :  to  every  being  and  system  in  the  universe ;  a 
most  striking  and  emphatical  description  of  his  omni- 
presence. For,  if  all  things  consist  by  Christ,  he  must 
be  every  where  to  uphold  them. 

5.  Jesus  Christ  is  represented  as  dwelling  in  his  chil- 
dren. In  Eph.  iii.  17,  the  Apostle  prays  that  Christ 
may  dwell  in  the  hearts  of  his  brethren.  And,  in  Col. 
i.  27,  this  indwelling  of  Christ  appears  to  be  the  burthen 
of  the  Apostle's  preaching.  "  Christ  in  you,  the  hope 
of  glory  :  whom  we  preach."  But  this  prayer  of  the 
Apostle,  who  was  under  the  inspiring  influence  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  must,  forever,  remain  unanswered  ;  and  his 
preaching  must  be  false  and  vain,  if  Jesus  Christ  be  not 
omnipresent.  For  how  can  our  Saviour  dwell  in  the 
hearts  of  his  children,  either  by  faith,  or  as  the  hope  of 
glory,  if  he  is  not  every  where  present  ?  It  would  be 
impossible.  For  the  children  of  God  are  in  numerous 
places  at  the  same  time.  Even  in  the  apostolic  age 
they  were  scattered  throughout  Judea,  Asia  Minor,  Eiv- 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  109 

rope,  and  some  parts  of  Africa.  Therefore,  if  Christ 
dwells  ill  all  their  hearts,  a  blessing  for  which  the  Apos- 
tle prayed,  and  a  doctrine  which  he  preached,  then  he 
must  be  in  all  these  places  at  the  same  time.  But  a  be- 
ing who  is  not  omnipresent,  can  only  be  in  one  place  at 
once.  Therefore,  Christ  must  be  omnipresent,  or,  as 
above  remarked,  the  Apostle's  prayer  can  never  be  an- 
swered, his  preaching  must  be  false  ;  and  it  is  in  vain 
for  us  to  pray  for  the  presence  of  our  Saviour. 

6.  This  doctrine  is  also  taught  in  Rev.  iii.  20  :  ''  Be- 
hold, I  stand  at  the  door,  and  knock :  if  any  man  hear 
my  voice,  and  open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  to  him,  and 
will  sup  with  him,  and  he  with  me."  In  this  text,  there 
are  two  things  worthy  of  notice.  1.  Christ  is  here  re- 
presented as  standing  and  knocking  at  the  door  of  the 
sinner's  heart.  And  as  there  are  no  exceptions  given  in 
the  text,  he  must  stand  at  the  door  of  every  heart  that 
has  not  yielded  to  his  grace  ;  consequently,  his  presence 
must  extend  to  the  utmost  bounds  of  the  habitable 
world.  Wherever  there  is  an  unregenerate  soul,  there  he 
stands  and  knocks  at  the  door  of  his  heart ;  but  to  do 
this,  he  must  be  omnipresent.  2.  For  the  encourage- 
ment of  those  who  hear  his  voice,  and  open  the  door 
unto  him,  our  Saviour  promises  in  this  passage  that  he 
will  come  in  unto  them,  and  sup  with  them.  This  pro- 
mise has,  doubtless,  carried  joy  to  the  hearts  of  thou- 
sands. It  has  fallen  upon  the  ear  of  the  almost  despair- 
ing sinner  as  the  voice  of  pardon  upon  those  of  the  man 
condemned  to  die.  But  deny  the  omnipresence  of  our 
Saviour,  and  you  strip  it  of  all  its  consoling  influence, 
yea,  upon  the  supposition  that  he  is  a  finite  and  limited 
being,  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to  redeem  the 
pledge  which  he  has  here  given,  unless  we  can  suppose 
that  among  the  many  thousands  who  are  now  flying  to 
him  for  mercy,  only  one  yields  at  the  same  time. 

Our  opponents  endeavor  to  evade  the  force  of  these 
arguments,  in  favor  of  the  omnipresence  of  our  Saviour, 
by  supposing  that  a  being  may  be  in  different  places  at 
10 


110  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

the  same  time,  without  being  omnipresent.  To  giv0 
this  some  show  of  plausibiUty,  it  is  said  that  the  Devil 
is  in  many  places  at  the  same  time,  and  yet  no  one  con- 
tends that  he  is  omnipresent.  Thus  bringing  our  Sa- 
viour, as  far  as  his  omnipresence  is  concerned,  down  up- 
on a  level  with  the  prince  of  darkness.  Mr.  Millard 
has  too  plainly  committed  himself  upon  this  subject  to 
be  misunderstood.  In  his  True  Messiah,  p.  155,  in  re- 
ply to  Dr.  Luckey,  he  has  the  following  words :  "So 
lar  would  Mr.  L.  be  from  maintaining  that  none  but  the 
infinite  God  can  be  present  in  difierent  places  at  the 
same  time,  that  he  will  no  doubt  acknowledge  that  even 
Satan  is  in  many  places  at  once.  That  this  old  accu- 
ser of  the  brethren  is  in  many  places  at  the  same  time, 
he  no  doubt  believes.  If  he  is  willing  to  admit  this, 
(and  I  think  he  will  not  deny  it,)  why  should  he  think 
it  impossible  for  the  Son  of  God  to  be  present  at  differ- 
ent places  with  his  disciples  at  the  same  time,  and  yet 
not  be  the  very  God  himself?" 

Why  Mr.  M.  should  think  that  Dr.  Luckey,  or  any 
other  Trinitarian,  believes  that  the  Devil  is  in  different 
places  at  the  same  time,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know.  It  is, 
however,  certain  that  such  a  doctrine  has  never  been 
taught  by  them.  Nor  has  Mr.  M.  found  it  in  any  of 
their  writings.  So  far  are  Trinitarians  from  admitting 
that  the  Devil,  or  any  other  created  being,  occupies 
more  than  one  place  at  the  same  time,  that  they  have 
universally  taught  this  to  be  an  attribute  peculiar  to 
God.  It  is  not  so,  however,  with  Mr.  M.,  for,  from  the 
above  extract,  it  appears  that  he  believes  that  the  Devil 
is  in  many  places  at  the  same  time ;  consequently,  he 
must  have  an  omnipresent  Devil,  or,  if  he  is  not  willing 
to  admit  this,  then  he  must  say  that  Jesus  Christ  is  no 
more  omnipresent  than  the  prince  of  darkness.  Mr.  M. 
probably  founds  his  peculiar  doctrine  of  the  omnipre- 
sence of  the  Devil,  upon  the  fact  that  many  persons 
are  subject  to  temptation  at  the  same  period  of  time. 
It  should,  however,  be  remembered,  1.  That  the  Devil 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  Ill 

has  many  demons  under  his  direction.  We  know  not 
the  number  of  fallen  angels  ;  they  may  be  more  than 
the  whole  family  of  man.  Therefore,  it  is  possible  that 
men  may  be  tempted  in  different  places  at  the  same 
time,  and  yet  the  Devil  not  be  in  more  than  one  place 
at  once. 

2.  We  are  not  sure  that  evil  spirits  may  not  produce 
effects  which  often  remain  when  those  spirits  are  no 
longer  immediately  present.  We  know  that  a  moral  prin- 
ciple once  imbibed,  often  produces  effects  for  a  long 
period  after  the  departure  of  the  person  from  whom  it 
has  been  imbibed.  In  view  of  this  fact,  and  the  one 
above  mentioned,  it  is  evident  that  different  men  may 
be  tempted  at  the  same  time,  and  still  the  Devil  be  in 
only  one  place  at  once  ;  therefore,  the  idea  of  his  being 
in  different  places  at  the  same  time,  is  left  without  the 
least  shadow  of  support,  and  the  omnipresence  of  our 
Saviour  remains  untouched.  May  we  not  then  say  of 
him,  that  he 

*<  Lives  tlirough  all  life,  extends  through  all  extent, 
Spreads  undivided,  operates  unspent, 
Breathes  in  our  souls,  informs  our  mortal  parts, 
As  full,  as  perfect,  in  a  hair,  as  heart; 
As  full,  as  perfect,  in  vile  man  that  mourns, 
As  the  rapt  seraph  that  adores  and  burns. 
To  him  no  high,  no  low,  no  great,  no  small, 
He  fills,  he  bounds,  connects,  and  equals  all." 

VIII.  Christ  is  omniscient,  or  infinite  in  wisdom, 
,"  This  cannot  be  the  attribute  of  a  creature,  for,  though  it 
may  be  difficult  to  say  how  far  the  knowledge  of  the  high- 
est order  of  intelligent  creatures  may  be  extended,  yet  is 
there  two  kinds  of  knowledge  which  God  has  made 
peculiar  to  himself  by  a  peculiar  claim.  The  first  is,  the 
perfect  knowledge  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the 
heart.  '  I  the  Lord  search  the  heart,  I  try  the  reins,' 
Jeremiah  xvii.  10.  '  Thou,  even  thou  only,'  says  Solo- 
mon, *  knowest  the  hearts  of  all  the  children  of  men,'  1 


112  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

Kings  viii.  39.  This  knowledge  is  attributed  to  and 
was  claimed  by  our  Lord,  and  that  without  any  intima- 
tion that  it  was  in  consequence  of  a  special  revelation, 
or  supernatural  gift,  as  in  a  few  instances  we  see  in  the 
Apostles  and  Prophets,  bestowed  to  answer  a  particular 
and  temporary  purpose.  In  such  instances  also,  it  is  to  be 
observed,  that  the  knowledge  of  the  spirits  and  thoughts 
of  men  was  obtained  in  consequence  of  a  revelation 
made  to  them  by  Him  whose  prerogative  it  is  to  search 
the  heart.  In  the  case  of  our  Lord,  it  is,  however,  not 
merely  said,  '  And  Jesus  l^neiv  their  thoughts,^  that  he 
perceived  in  his  spirit,  that  they  so  reasoned  among 
themselves  ;  but  it  is  referred  to  as  an  attrihute  or  on- 
ginal  faculty ,  and  it  is,  therefore,  made  use  of  by  St. 
John,  on  one  occasion,  to  explain  his  conduct  with  re- 
ference to  certain  of  his  enemies  : — '  But  Jesus  did  not 
commit  himself  unto  them,  because  he  knew  all  men, 
and  needed  not  that  any  should  testify  of  man  ;  for  he 
KNEW  WHAT  WAS  IN  MAN,'  Johu  ii.  24,  25.  After  his 
exaltation,  also,  he  claims  the  prerogative  in  the  full  style 
and  majesty  of  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament : 
*  And  all  the  churches  shall  know  that  /  am  he  which 

SEARCHETH  THE  REINS   AND  THE   HEART,'"   (WatSOn,) 

Rev.  ii.  23.  It  is,  therefore,  certain  that  our  Saviour 
knows  the  hearts  and  tries  the  reins  of  the  children  of 
men,  while  Jehovah  claims  this  as  his  peculiar  preroga- 
tive ;  and  Solomon,  in  his  address  to  Deity,  says, 
"Thou,  even  thou  only,  knowest  the  hearts  of  all  the 
children  of  men  :"  therefore,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour 
of  sinners,  must  be  the  omniscient  God. 

2.  "A  striking  description  of  the  omniscience  of 
Christ  is  also  found  in  Heb.iv.  12,  13,  if  we  understand 
it,  with  most  of  the  ancients,  of  the  hypostatic  Word ; 
(Jesus  Christ,)  to  which  sense,  I  think  the  scope  of  the 
passage  and  context  clearly  determines  it.  '  For  the- 
Word  of  God  is  quick  (living)  and  powerful,  and 
sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword,  piercing  even  to  the 
dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit  and  of  tlie  joints  aad 


tolVlNltY    OF    CHRIST.  113 

marrow,  and  is  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts  and 
INTENTS  OF  THE  HEART ;  neither  is  there  any  creattire 
that  is  not  manifest  in  his  sight ;  for  ail  things  are  na- 
ked and  open  to  the  eyes  of  him  with  whom  we  have 
to  do.'  The  reasons  for  referring  this  passage  rather  to 
Christ,  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  than  to  the  Gospel  it- 
self, are,  first,  that  it  agrees  better  with  the  Apostle's 
arorument.  He  is  warnino^  Christians  against  the  exam- 
pie  of  ancient  Jewish  unbelief,  and  enforces  his  warn- 
ing by  reminding  them,  that  the  Word  of  God  discerns 
tlie  thougrhts  and  intents  of  the  heart.  The  aro;ument  is 
obvious,  if  the  personal  Word  is  meant ;  not  at  all  so, 
if  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  be  supposed.  Secondly, 
the  clauses,  '  neither  is  there  any  creature  that  is  not 
manifest  in  his  sight,'  and,  all  '  things  are  naked  and 
open  to  the  eyes  of  him,  with  whom  we  have  to  do,'  or 
'  to  loJiom  ive  must  give  an  account,'  are  undoubtedly 
spoken  of  a  person,  and  that  person  our  witness  and 
judge.  Those,  therefore,  who  think  that  the  Gospel  is 
spoken  of  in  verse  12,  represent  the  Apostle  as  making 
a  transition  from  the  Gospel  to  God  himself  in  what  fol- 
lows. This,  however,  produces  a  violent  break  in  the 
argument,  for  which  no  grammatical  nor  contextual  rea- 
son whatever  can  be  given  ;  and  it  is  evident  that  the 
same  metaphor  extends  through  both  verses.  This  is 
taken  from  the  practice  of  dividing  and  cutting  asunder 
the  bodies  of  beasts  slain  for  sacrifice,  and  laying  them 
open  for  inspection,  lest  any  blemish  or  unsoundness 
should  lurk  within,  and  render  them  unfit  for  the  service 
of  God.  The  dividing  asunder  of  '  the  joints  and  mar- 
row' in  the  12th  verse,  and  the  being  made  '  naked  and 
open  to  the  eyes,'  in  the  13th,  are  all  parts  of  the  same 
sacrificial  and  judicial  action,  to  which,  therefore,  we 
can  justly  assign  but  one  agent.  The  only  reason  given 
for  the  other  interpretation  is,  that  the  term  Logos  is 
nowhere  else  used  by  St.  Paul.  This  can  weigh  but 
little  against  the  obvious  sense  of  the  passage.  St. 
Luke  i.  2,  appears  to  use  the  term  Logos,  in  a  personal 
10* 


114  MVINFTY    OF    CHRIST^ 

sense,  and  he  uses  it  but  once  ;  and  if  St.  Paul  uses  it 
here,  and  not  in  his  other  epistles,  this  reason  may  be 
given,  that  in  other  epistles  he  writes  to  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles united  in  the  same  churches  ;  here,  to  Jews  alone^ 
among  whom  we  have  seen  that  the  Logos  was  a  well- 
known  theological  term." — (Watson.)  It  is,  there- 
fore, evident  that  this  passage  refers  to  Christ ;  and  of 
him  it  affirms,  that  he  is  a  "  discerner  of  the  thoughts 
and  intents  of  the  heart,''  that  all  things  are  naked 
and  open  to  his  eyes,  and  that  there  is  not  any  thing 
that  is  not  manifest  in  his  sight ;  therefore,  he  must  be 
infinite  in  wisdom. 

3.  As  the  knowledge  of  the  heart  is  attributed  to 
Christ,  so  also  is  the  knowledge  of  futurity ;  which  is 
another  quality  so  peculiar  to  Deity,  that  we  find  the 
true  God  distinguishing  himself  from  all  the  false  divi- 
nities of  the  Heathen  by  this  circumstance  alone.  "  I 
am  God,  and  there  is  none  like  me,  Declaring  the  end 
from  the  beginning,  and  from  ancient  times  the  things 
that  are  not  yet  done,  saying,  My  counsel  shall  stand,, 
and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure,"  Isaiah  xlvi.  9,  10.  So 
certain,  however,  is  it  that  Christ  possessed  this  know- 
ledge of  futurity,  and  that  he  was  capable  of  making 
known  future  events,  that  it  is  said  to  have  been  his- 
spirit  which  inspired  the  prophets.  1  Pet.  i.  9,  10,  11. 
"  Receiving  the  end  of  your  faith,  even  the  salvation  of 
your  souls  :  of  which  salvation  the  prophets  have  inqui- 
red diligently,  who  prophesied  of  the  grace  that  should- 
come  unto  you :  searching  what,  or  what  manner  of 
time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did  signi" 
fy,  when  it  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christy 
and  the  glory  that  should  folloiv.''  It  is  also  affirmed. 
John  vi.  64,  that  "  Jesus  knew  from  the  beginning  who 
they  were  that  believed  not,  and  who  should  betray 
him;"  and  again,  it  is  said,  "For  Jesus  knew  who 
should  betray  him."  These  passages  of  holy  writ,  as 
well  as  the  numerous  predictions  which  w  ere  uttered  by 
our  Saviour,  many  of  which  have  been  most  literally 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  115 

and  circumstantially  fulfilled,  prove  conclusively  that  the 
future  is  open  to  his  omniscient  eye.  Therefore,  he 
must  be  that  infinitely  wise  being,  who,  by  the  mouth  of 
the  Prophet,  makes  the  following  inquiry  concerning 
himself:  "To  whom  will  ye  liken  me,  and  make  me 
equal,  and  compare  me,  that  we  may  be  like  ?"  "  I  am 
God,  and  there  is  none  like  me.  Declaring  the  end  from 
the  beginning,  and  Jrom  ancient  times  the  things  that 
are  not  yet  done^ 

In  order  to  evade  the  force  of  this  argument,  it  is 
contended  by  our  opponents,  that  this  knowledge  of  fu- 
turity was  possessed  by  Christ  in  consequence  of  a  spe- 
cial revelation  from  God,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Prophets. 
But  if  this  was  the  fact  with  regard  to  the  knowledge 
of  our  Saviour,  why  does  he  not  give  us  some  intima- 
tion of  it  ?  Why  does  he  remain  silent  upon  this  im- 
portant point,  while  the  Prophets  are  so  particular  to  in- 
form us  from  whence  they  derived  their  knowledge  of 
futurity,  and  while  he  must  have  known  that  this  very 
silence  was  calculated  to  mislead  us,  if  this  knowledge 
was  not  an  original  attribute  of  his  nature  ?  But  in- 
stead of  giving  us  to  understand  that  he  received  this 
knowledge  from  any  other  source,  he  uniformly  speaks 
of  it  as  proceeding  from  his  own  prescience.  And  so 
far  are  the  Apostles  from  teaching  that  Christ  possessed 
this  knowledge  in  consequence  of  revelation,  that  they 
inform  us  that  it  was  his  Spirit  which  was  in  the  Pro- 
phets inspiring  them  to  foretell  future  events. 

4.  The  omniscience  of  Christ  is  also  most  clearly 
taught  in  Col.  ii.  2,  3  :  "  That  their  hearts  might  be 
comforted,  being  knit  together  in  love,  and  unto  all  riches 
of  the  full  assurance  of  understanding,  to  the  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  mystery  of  God,  and  of  the  Father,  and 
of  Christ,  in  whom  are  hid  all  the  treasures  of  wis-- 
dam  and  Icnowledgey  Now  if  the  treasures,  and  all 
tlie  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge  are  hid  in  Christ, 
as  this  text  plainly  declares,  he  must  be  infinite  in  wis- 
dom.    Nor  is  St.  Paul  the  only  Apostle  of  our  Saviour 


116  '         DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST. 

who  bears  testimony  to  this  important  truth ;  for  Peter 
addresses  him  in  the  following  impressive  language : 
"  Lord  thou  knotvest  all  things  ;  thou  Icnowest  that  I 
love  thee."  Again,  in  John  xvi.  30,  his  disciples,  after 
having  witnessed  a  display  of  his  wisdom,  exclaimed 
with  one  voice,  ^'Now  we  are  sure  that  thou  knowest 
all  things,  and  needest  not  that  any  man  should  ask 
thee :  by  this  we  believe  that  thou  earnest  forth  from 
God."  Should  it  be  objected,  that  Christ  no  where 
approves  of  the  honor  which  is  here  done  him,  by  his 
Apostles,  I  answer,  that  this  is  little  to  the  purpose ; 
for  the  expressions  in  the  above  texts  declaring  that  in 
him  are  all  the  treasures  of  w^isdom,  and  that  he  knows 
all  things,  must  be  either  true  or  false.  If  true,  Jesus 
must  approve  of  them  ;  for  he  is  truth  itself,  and  they 
prove  the  point  for  which  we  plead.  If  they  ^.Ye  false, 
they  are  pregnant  with  blasphemy  ;  and  if  so,  the  hon- 
or of  God,  and  the  salvation  of  the  Apostles  made  it  ne- 
cessary that  they  should  have  been  sharply  reproved. 
What !  shall  Christ  say  to  Peter,  "  Get  thee  behind  me, 
Satan  !"  when  he  only  endeavored  to  dissuade  him 
from  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  there  to  suffer  ?  and  shall 
his  disciples  meet  with  no  rebuke  from  the  humble  and 
holy  Jesus,  when  they  rob  God  of  his  glory  and  give  it 
to  another,  by  ascribing  infinite  wisdom,  one  of  the  Di- 
vine perfections,  to  a  mere  creature  ?  There  is  nothing 
so  precious  as  the  glory  of  God,  it  being  the  ultimate 
end  of  all  things ;  consequently,  so  far  as  any  thing  is 
contrary  to  it,  it  must  be  detestable.  But  in  the  pas- 
sages before  us  the  Apostles  not  only  rob  God  of  his  glo- 
ry, by  ascribing  one  of  his  perfections  to  a  mere  crea- 
ture, as  Jesus  Christ  must  be  if  he  is  not  God,  but  if 
their  assertions  that  Christ  knew  all  things  be  false, 
they  must  have  been  guiUy  of  hlasphcnnj.  Therefore 
both  the  glory  of  God  and  the  salvation  of  the  Apos- 
tles required  that  the  Saviour  should  have  corrected 
them,  if  in  an  error.     But  Jesus  did  not  correct  them, 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST  117 

therefore  they  were  not  mistaken  ;  and  Jesus  Christ  must 
know  all  things. 

It  is,  however,  urged  that  the  passage  above  men- 
tioned, declaring  that  Christ  knows  all  things,  cannot 
prove  his  omniscience,  without  proving  that  Christians 
are  omniscient  also  ;  for  John  says  to  his  brethren,  "Ye 
have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all 
things."  1  Johnii.  20.  In  reply  to  this,  we  would  say 
that  with  the  same  propriety  we  might  endeavor  to  dis- 
prove the  omniscience  of  the  Father.  The  Bible  cer- 
tainly gives  us  to  understand  that  God  knows  all  things, 
but  this  cannot  prove  that  he  does  without  proving  that 
Christians  are  infinite  in  wisdom  ;  for  John  says  to  some 
of  them,  ''  But  ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One, 
and  ye  know  all  things."  Who  does  not  see  that  our 
opponents,  in  order  to  maintain  their  position,  have  ei- 
ther to  deny  the  wisdom  of  Deity,  or  else  contend  that 
Christians  are  equal  with  him  in  knowledge  ?  If  they 
attempt  to  escape  from  this  dilemma  by  saying  that  the 
proposition,  "  and  ye  know  all  things,"  is  limited  in  the 
text  quoted  from  1  John,  they  then  give  up  the  whole 
force  of  their  argument,  founded  upon  it,  against  the 
omniscience  of  the  Saviour.  That  this  proposition  is 
limited  in  the  text  from  1  John  must  be  admitted,  unless 
we  can  suppose  that  Christians  are  as  wise  as  God,  a 
doctrine  for  which  our  opponents  will  not  contend.  But 
there  can  be  no  such  reason  given  for  limiting  the- 
knowledge  of  our  Saviour ;  for  the  orthodox  doctrine 
is  that  he  is  God. 

Unitarians,  however,  urge  against  this  ascription  of 
*^  infinite  knowledge  to  our  Lord,  Mark  xiii.  32  :  '  But 
of  that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the 
angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the 
Father  only.'  The  genuineness  of  the  clause  '  neither 
the  Son  '  has  been  disputed,  and  is  not  inserted  by  Gries- 
bach  in  his  text ;  there  is  not,  however,  sufficient  rea- 
son for  its  rejection,  though  certainly  in  the  parallel  pas- 
sage, Matt.  xxiv.  36,  *  neither  the  Son  '  is  not  found. 


118  DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST. 

*  But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the 
angels  in  heaven  ;  but  my  Father  only.'  We  are  then 
reduced  to  this — a  number  of  passages  explicitly  de- 
clare that  Christ  knows  all  things  ;  there  is  one  which 
declares  that  the  Son  did  not  know  '  the  day  and  the 
hour  '  of  judgment ;  again  there  is  a  passage  which  cer- 
tainly implies  that  even  this  period  was  known  to  Christ ; 
for  St.  Paul,  1  Tim.  vi.  14,  speaking  of  the  'appear- 
ing of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ '  as  the  universal  judge, 
immediately  adds,  '  which  in  his  own  times  shall  show 
who  is  the  blessed  and  only  potentate,'  he.  The  day 
of  judgment  is  called  '  his  own  times,^  or  '  his  own  sea- 
£on,^  which,  in  its  obvious  sense,  means  the  season  he 
has  himself  fixed,  since  a  certain  manifestation  of  him- 
self is  in  its  fullness  reserved  by  him  to  that  period.  As 
'  the  times  and  the  seasons,'  also,  are  said,  in  another 
place,  to  be  in  the  Father's  '  own  power ;'  so  by  an 
equivalent  phrase,  they  are  here  said  to  be  in  the  power 
of  the  Son,  because  they  are  '  his  own  timesJ  Doubt- 
less, then,  he  knew  '  the  day  and  the  hour  of  judg- 
ment.' Now,  certainly,  no  such  glaring  and  direct  con- 
tradiction can  exist  in  the  word  of  truth,  as  that  our 
Lord  should  know  the  day  of  judgment,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  and  in  the  same  sense,  not  know  it.  Either, 
therefore,  the  passage  in  Mark  must  admit  of  an  inter- 
pretation which  will  make  it  consistent  with  other  pas- 
sages which  clearly  affirm  our  Lord's  knowledge  of  all 
things,  and  consequently  of  this  great  day,  or  these  pas- 
sages must  submit  to  such  an  interpretation  as  will  bring 
them  into  accordance  with  that  in  Mark.  It  cannot, 
however,  be  in  the  nature  of  things  that  texts,  which 
clearly  predicate  an  infinite  knowledge,  should  be  in- 
terpreted to  mean  a  finite  and  partial  knowledge,  and 
this  attempt  would  only  establish  a  contradiction  be- 
tween the  text  and  the  comment.  Their  interpretation 
is  imperative  upon  us  ;  but  the  text  in  Mark  is  capable 
of  an  interpretation  which  involves  no  contradiction  or 
absurdity  whatever,  and  which  makes  it  accord  with  the 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  119 

rest  of  the  Scripture  testimony  on  this  subject."  (WaU 
son.)  This  interpretation,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the 
clause  in  the  above  text,  "neither  the  Son,"  refers  ex- 
clusively to  the  human  nature  of  the  Lord ;  and  "  it 
must  be  granted,  that  as  man  he  did  not  know  beyond 
tlie  capacities  of  human  and  finite  understanding ;  and 
not  what  he  knew  as  God  :  He  could  not  be  sup- 
posed to  know  in  this  respect  things  not  knowable  by 
man,  any  otherwise  than  as  the  Divine  nature  and  wis- 
dom thought  fit  to  communicate  and  impart  such  know- 
ledge to  him. 

"  Therefore  Christ  may  be  said,  with  respect  to  his 
human  nature  and  finite  understanding,  not  to  know 
the  precise  time,  the  day  and  hour  of  some  future 
events  ;"  while,  as  God,  in  his  Divine  nature,  he  was 
infinite  in  knowledge. 

'^  It  is,  indeed,  objected  by  Unitarians,  that  this  inter- 
pretation of  Mark  xiii.  32,  charges  our  Saviour,  if  not 
with  direct  falsehood,  at  least  with  criminal  evasion  ; 
since  he  could  not  say,  with  truth  and  sincerity,  that  he 
was  ignorant  of  the  day,  if  he  knew  it  in  any  capacity; 
as  it  cannot  be  denied  that  man  is  immortal,  so  long  as 
he  is,  in  any  respect,  immortal.  The  answer  to  this  is, 
that  as  it  may  truly  be  said  of  the  body  of  man,  that  it 
is  not  immortal,  though  the  soul  is  ;  so  it  may,  with 
equal  truth,  be  said,  that  the  Son  of  Man  was  ignorant 
of  some  things,  though  the  Son  of  God  knew  every 
thing.  It  is  not,  then,  inconsistent  with  truth  and  sin- 
cerity for  our  Lord  to  deny  that  he  knew  what  he  real- 
ly did  know  in  one  capacity,  while  he  was  ignorant  of  it 
in  another.  Thus,  in  one  place  he  says,  '  Now  I  am 
no  more  in  the  world,'  John  xvii.  1 1  ;  and  in  another, 
'  Ye  have  the  poor  always  with  you  ;  but  me  ye  have 
not  always,'  Matt.  xxvi.  11  ;  yet  on  another  occasion, 
he  says,  '  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,'  Matt,  xxviii.  20  ; 
and  again,  '  If  a  man  love  me,  my  Father  will  love 
him,  and  we  will  come  unto  him  and  make  our  abode 
with  him/  John  xiv.  23.     From  hence  we  see  that  our 


120  DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST. 

Lord  might,  without  any  breach  of  sincerity,  deny  that 
of  himself,  considered  in  one  capacity,  which  he  could 
not  have  denied  in  another.  There  was  no  equivo- 
cation in  his  denying  the  knowledge  of  '  that  day 
and  that  hour,'  since,  with  respect  to  his  human  na- 
ture, it  WHS  most  true ;  and  that  he  designed  it  to  refer 
alone  to  his  human  nature,  is  probable,  because  he  does 
not  say  the  Son  of  God  was  ignorant  of  that  day,  but  the 
Son,  meaning  the  Son  of  man,  as  appears  from  the 
context,  (Matthew  xxiv.  37,  39 ;  Mark  xiii.  26,  34.) 
Thus  Mark  xiii.  32,  which,  at  first  sight,  may  seem  to 
favor  the  Unitarian  hypothesis,  is  capable  of  a  rational 
and  unforced  interpretation,  consistently  with  the  ortho- 
dox faith. — Holden. 

And  that  this  interpretation  is  correct,  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  it  is  the  only  one  which  will  reconcile  the 
different  passages  of  Scripture  relative  to  our  Saviour's 
knowledge  ;  for  in  one  place  it  is  said  that  he  knows  all 
things,  while  in  the  text  under  consideration  he  is  said 
to  be  ignorant  of  the  day  of  Judgment.  These  passa- 
ges, on  the  principles  of  our  opponents,  which  deny 
that  one  of  them  refers  to  his  Divine  and  the  other  to 
his  human  nature,  are  directly  opposed  to  and  contra- 
dict each  other ;  and  if  the  Bible  contradicts  itself,  it 
cannot  be  true.  Unitarians  must,  therefore,  admit  the 
correctness  of  the  above  interpretation,  or  deny  that  the 
Scriptures  were  given  by  Divine  inspiration  ;  and  if  the 
Scriptures  are  not  Divinely  inspired,  why  do  they 
quote  them  in  defence  of  their  doctrines  ? 

IX.  Christ  is  omnipotent »  Omnipotent  power,  ac- 
cording to  Grundy,  who  was  a  noted  Unitarian,  is  "  pow- 
er of  control  over  all  things."  In  Phil.  iii.  21,  the 
Apostle,  speaking  of  Christ,  says,  "  Who  shall  change 
our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his 
glorious  body,  according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is 
able  even  to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself.'  It  is, 
therefore,  evident  that  Christ  is  omnipotent,  even  taking 
an  Unitarian  definition  of  omnipotence  ',  for  it  is  express- 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  121 

ly  said  that  be  is  able  to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself; 
consequently,  he  must  have  power  of  control  over  all 
things,  which  Mr.  G.  says  is  omnipotence. 

This  corresponds  with  Isaiah  ix.  5  :  "  His  name  shall 
be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God.^^ 
The  original  word  here  rendered  mighty,  not  only  con- 
veys an  idea  of  simple  power  and  strength,  but  of  con- 
quering  strength  and  prevailing  power.  Thus  Christ 
is  not  only  mighty  in  his  energies,  but  irresistably  effica- 
cious and  almighty.  But  it  is  said  that  the  person  here 
spoken  of  w^as  born — that  he  was  a  son  given  ;  from 
which  our  opponents  argue  that  he  cannot  be  almighty  : 
for  an  almighty  being  cannot,  without  the  grossest  im- 
piety, be  said  to  be  either  a  child  born  or  a  son  given. 
It  should,  however,  be  remembered,  that  the  Prophet  is 
here  speaking  of  both  the  human  and  Divine  nature  of 
Jesus  Christ.  "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son 
is  given."  These  words  unquestionably  refer  to  the  hu- 
man nature  in  which  he  was  to  make  his  future  appear- 
ance. But  the  following  words,  "  his  name  shall  be 
called  the  Mighty  God,"  evidently  refer  to  the  Divine 
nature. 

That  this  is  a  correct  view  of  the  subject,  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  it  is  the  only  view  that  can  be  taken 
which  w^ill  reconcile  the  different  parts  of  the  text. 
While  if  we  deny  that  the  Prophet  refers  both  to  the 
human  and  Divine  nature  of  our  Lord,  we  make  one 
clause  of  the  text  contradict  the  other  ;  thereby  destroy- 
ing the  truth  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 

It  is,  however,  contended  that  this  is  only  a  prophecy 
setting  forth  the  impiety  of  those  who  should  presume 
to  call  our  Saviour  by  this  improper  name.  But  if  it 
can  be  shown  that  he  is  declared  to  be  almighty  by 
other  inspired  writers,  it  is  presumed  that  it  will  clear 
those  who  believe  in  his  omnipotence  from  the  charge 
of  impiety,  prove  that  he  is  almighty,  and  establish  his 
Divinity. 

In  Rev.  i.  8,  we  find  the  following  words  of  the  Sa- 
11 


122  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

t. 

viour :  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and 
the  ending,  saith  the  Lord,  which  is,  and  which  was, 
and  which  is  to  come,  the  Almighty ^  This  text  is  not 
presented  to  us  in  the  language  of  prophecy,  as  the  one 
quoted  from  Isaiah,  but  it  is  a  solemn  description  of  the 
character  of  Christ  in  the  present  tense.  A  description 
given  by  Christ  himself,  while  holding  converse  with  his 
servant  John  in  the  Island  of  Patmos,  and  in  this  sub- 
lime description  of  his  own  character,  he  declares  him- 
self to  be  Almighty. 

Isaiah  was  directed  to  prophecy  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  saying,  ^'  All  flesh  shall  know  that  I  the  Lord  am 
thy  Saviour  and  thy  Redeemer,  the  Mighty  One  of 
Jacob,"  Isaiah  xlix.  26.  But,  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Sa- 
viour and  Redeemer  ;  therefore,  he  is  both  Jehovah  and 
the  Mighty  One  of  Jacob,  or  the  Almighty.  The 
Psalmist,  also,  when  his  heart  indited  a  good  matter, 
and  he  was  speaking  of  the  things  touching  the  king, 
calls  upon  him  as  the  Mighty  One.  ^'  Gird  thy  sword 
upon  thy  thigh,  O  most  Mighty,  with  thy  glory  and  thy 
majesty."  Again,  he  says  of  him  in  this  enraptured 
language,  "Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever: 
the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom  is  a  right  sceptre,"  Psalms 
xlv.  1 — 6.  These  very  words,  so  expressive  of  omni- 
potence and  absolute  Divinity,  are,  by  St.  Paul,  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Hebrews,  applied  to  Christ ;  therefore, 
we  cannot  be  mistaken  in  asserting  that  he  is  Almighty. 

2.  Nor  was  our  Saviour  mighty  in  name  or  word  on- 
ly, but  in  deed  and  in  truth.  The  miracles  which  were 
wrought  by  him,  bear  testimony  to  his  omnipotence. 
All,  who  are,  in  the  least,  acquainted  with  the  history 
of  his  life,  as  given  by  the  evangelists,  know  that  at  his 
word  the  dumb  was  made  to  speak,  the  deaf  to  hear, 
and  the  blind  to  see  ;  the  lame  forgot  his  infirmities,  and 
leaped  for  joy  ;  the  sick  man  rose  from  his  bed  in  per- 
fect soundness  and  sang  his  praise.  The  elemgsTS  were 
also  under  his  control.  At  liis  command  the  \'(ind  ceas- 
ed, and  there  was  a  great  calm.     His  voice,  also,  pen©- 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  123 

irated  the  darkness  of  the  tomb,  and  roused  its  inmates 
from  the  sleep  of  death :  called  their  bodies  from  the 
silent  grave,  and  their  spirits  from  the  eternal  world. 
These  works  are  of  such  a  stupenduous  nature,  that  they 
prove,  beyond  all  contradiction,  that  Christ  is  Almighty  : 
for  it  certainly  required  omnipotent  power  in  order  to 
their  performance.  To  say,  that  these  miracles  Were 
wrought  by  any  thing  less  than  omnipotent  power,  is  to 
say  that  they  were  not  wrought  by  the  power  of  God, 
unless  we  can  suppose  that  God  has  a  power  which  is 
not  omnipotent.  But,  if  God  has  a  power  which  is  not 
almighty,  he  must  have  one  attribute  which  is  not  infi- 
nite, and  must,  therefore,  fail  of  being  an  infinite  being. 
If,  however,  these  were  not  wrought  by  Almighty  pow- 
er, or  by  the  power  of  God,  they  fail  of  proving  the 
Divine  origin  of  the  Christian  religion,  which  is  the  very 
€ind  for  which  they  were  wrought. 

But,  to  destroy  the  force  of  this  argument,  we  are 
told,  that  the  Apostles  performed  the  same  miracles,  and 
must  therefore  possess  the  same  power,  and  if  the  pos- 
sessing this  power,  and  the  performing  these  works, 
prove  that  Christ  is  almighty,  the  Apostles  must  be  al- 
mighty also. 

In  reply  to  this,  it  is  sufficient  to  remind  the  reader, 
that  the  apostles  did  not  perform  these  miracles,  like 
their  Divine  master,  in  their  own  name  ;  their  language 
is,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  I  say  unto  thee 
arise  and  walk.  This,  therefore,  destroys  the  force  of 
the  above  objection,  and  at  the  same  time,  if  possible, 
it  increases  the  strength  of  the  argument  in  favor  of  the 
position  that  Jesus  Christ  is  almighty.  For  it  shows, 
conclusively,  that  he  is  the  source  from  which  the  Apos- 
tles derived  the  power  by  which  they  were  enabled  to 
do  these  miracles,  and  that  it  was  in  his  name,  and  by 
his  power,  that  they  performed  them. 

3.  That  Christ  is  almighty,  is  also  evident  from  the 
fact  that  he  is  the  creator  of  all  things.  John  i.  3  : 
^^  All  things  were  made  by  him  ;  and  without  him  was 


124  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

not  any  thing  made  that  was  made."  And,  Col.  i.  15^ 
16,  17 :  "  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the 
first-born  of  every  creature  :  for  by  him  were  all  things 
created  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible 
and  invisible,  whether  they 'be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or 
principalities,  or  powers  ;  all  things  were  created  by 
him,  and  for  him.;  and  he  is  before  all  things,  and  by 
him  all  things  consist."  Now,  if  he  created  all  things, 
he  not  only  created  the  earth  in  its  present  form,  with 
all  its  furniture,  from  the  smallest  spire  of  grass,  which 
is  trodden  unheeded  beneath  our  feet,  up  to  the  stately 
oak,  which  has  braved  the  tempest  of  a  hundred  years, 
and  from  the  small  animalculee,  which  hides  itself  on 
the  surface  of  the  polished  marble,  up  to  the  huge  mam- 
moth, whose  footsteps  shook  the  earth,  together  with 
that  mighty  mass  of  intellect  which  has  fluttered  in  the 
human  bosom  since  the  formation  of  man.  But,  also, 
those  numerous  worlds  and  systems  of  worlds  which 
are  spread  out  through  the  immensity  of  space,  to  such 
an  amazing  distance,  that  it  is  probable  that  there  are 
suns  in  the  centre  of  systems  of  worlds  whose  light  has 
not  reached  us  since  the  first  dawn  of  time,  notwith- 
standing light  flies  swifter  than  the  speed  of  a  cannon 
ball.  Who,  then,  wonders  that  the  Psalmist  should  ex- 
claim, "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and 
the  firmament  sheweth  his  handiwork."  Or  that  Mil- 
ton, while  meditating  on  the  wonders  of  creation, 
should  say,  "  These  are  thy  work,  parent  of  good.  Al- 
mighty thine,  this  universal  frame."  But  his  creative 
power  does  not  stop  here.  He  also  created  all  the  hosts 
of  the  upper  sanctuary,  from  the  spirit  of  an  humble 
Lazarus,  up  to  the  tallest  seraph  who  stands  before  the 
throne.  ]\ow,  let  me  inquire,  if  all  this  was  done  with- 
out omnipotent  power ;  such  a  hypothesis  is  absurd, 
and  carries  its  own  refutation  on  its  very  front.  There 
are  those,  however,  who  deny  that  omnipotence  was  ex- 
erted in  the  work  of  creation.  This  position  was  taken 
in  a  public  debate  in  which  the  writer  of  these  pages 


DIVINITY  OF    CHRIST.  125 

and  the  Rev.  John  Power,  were  called  upon  to  defend 
the  orthodox  doctrine  against  the  cavils  of  two  preach- 
ers of  that  class  of  Unitarians  who  claim  to  be  called  by 
the  name  of  Christians.  The  argument  which  was 
then  advanced  to  support  the  position  that  omnipotent 
power  was  not  exerted  in  the  work  of  creation,  was,  that 
if  omnipotence  was  exerted  in  creation,  the  creation 
must  be  infinite,  for  every  effect  must  be  equal  to  its 
cause. 

To  which  Mr.  Power  replied,  in  his  usual  conclu- 
sive manner,  that  if  the  argument  was  sound,  it  would 
either  prove  that  God  is  not  an  infinite  being,  or  that 
the  creation  is  indeed  infinite.  For  it  is  expressly  de- 
clared, in  Gen.  i.  1,  that  "in  the  beginning  God  crea- 
ted the  heavens  and  the  earth ;"  therefore,  God  is  the 
cause,  and  if  an  infinite  cause  must  necessarily  produce 
an  infinite  effect,  it  follows  that  if  God  is  infinite,  every 
thing  which  he  has  created  must  be  infinite  also  ;  con- 
sequently, we  have  not  only  an  infinite  heaven,  and  an 
infinite  earth,  but  even  infinite  bugs,  bats,  and  moles.  But 
these  are  not  infinite  ;  therefore,  God  is  not  an  infinite 
being  ;  that  is,  if  an  infinite  cause  must  produce  an  infi- 
nite effect.  The  position  was  then  taken,  that  although 
God,  the  creator,  was  infinite,  yet  he  did  not  exert  his 
infinite  power  in  creation.  In  reply  to  this,  it  was  ar- 
gued, that  if  this  was  the  fact,  then,  as  has  been  remark- 
ed on  the  subject  of  miracles,  God  has  a  power  which  is 
not  infinite,  and,  therefore,  must  be  a  finite  being ;  for 
the  moment  we  attach  any  thing  to  him  which  is  not  in- 
finite, we  strip  him  of  his  infinity.  We  therefore  see 
that  the  above  arguments  of  our  opponents,  like  many 
others  which  have  been  noticed,  would,  if  sound,  anni- 
hilate Deity,  and  leave  the  Universe  without  a  moral 
governor. 

But  it  is  objected  that  Christ  created  officially,  or  by 
delegation.     I  answer,  this  is  impossible  ;  for,  as  crea- 
tion requires  absolute  and  unlimited  power  or  omnipo- 
XI* 


126  DIVINITY  OF    CHRIST. 

tence,  there  can  be  but  one  Creator.  See  this  objection 
answered  on  page  85. 

4.  We  may  now  sum  up  the  Scriptural  argument  in 
favor  of  the  Divine  attributes  being  ascribed  by  the  in- 
spired penmen  to  our  Saviour,  with  two  of  his  own  re- 
markable declarations.  The  first  is  John  v.  19  :  "  Ver- 
ily, verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do :  for  what 
things  soever  he  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son  like- 
wise." Does  the  Father  exert  omnipotent  power,  or 
exercise  infinite  wisdom,  so  does  the  Son.  Does  the 
Father  extend  through  illimitable  space,  and  fill  the  uni- 
verse with  his  presence — does  he  pursue  the  same 
changeless  course  through  the  annals  of  eternity,  the 
same  may  be  said  of  Jesus  Christ ;  for  "  whatsoever  the 
Father  doeth,  these  doeth  the  Son  likewise."  Again, 
what  the  Father  does  is  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  the 
work  of  God,  and  proper  to  no  creature  ;  Jesus  does 
whatsoever  the  Father  does,  therefore  he  must  possess 
the  same  attributes,  and  be  clothed  with  the  same  na- 
ture. Again,  the  Son  can  do  nothing  but  what  he  sees 
the  Father  do.  But  he  never  sees  the  Father  err  or 
change,  therefore  he  can  never  err  or  change,  but  must 
be  immutable  ;  and  if  immutable,  he  must  be  God  ;  for 
God  is  the  only  immutable  being. 

But  it  is  said,  "  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  him- 
self;" and  from  this  it  is  argued  that  he  is  inferior  to 
the  Father.  If,  however,  those  who  make  this  objec- 
tion would  read  the  text  with  a  little  more  care  they 
would  see  the  fallacy  of  their  argument.  It  is  not  said 
that  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  without  any 
qualifying  term,  but  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself 
hut  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do  ;  from  which  it  clearly 
follows  that  he  can  do  whatever  he  sees  the  Father  do. 
But  it  is  manifestly  impossible  for  any  cieated  being  to 
do  whatever  God  does.  Jesus  Christ  does,  therefore  he 
is  no  created  being,  but  absolutely  God,  possessing  th& 
same  nature  and  attributes  of  the  Father. 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  127 

We  are,  however,  perfectly  willing  to  admit  that 
Christ  can  do  nothing  of  himself  alone.  But  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  he  is  inferior  to  the  Father,  any  more 
than  that  the  Father  is  infeiior  to  the  Son  ;  for  the  Fath- 
er can  do  nothing  without  the  Son.  This  is  evident 
from  the  following  clause  in  the  text ;  "  Whatsoever  he 
doeth,  these  doeth  the  Son  likewise  ;"  showing  that 
the  Son  is  present  with  the  Father  in  all  his  works. 

The  reason  why  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself, 
undoubtedly  is,  that  he  is  so  intimately  connected  with 
the  Father  that  neither  of  them  can  act  in  a  separate 
and  independent  manner.  Therefore  Christ  very  justly 
says,  on  the  one  hand,  that  "  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
himself,"  and  on  the  other,  that  "  whatsoever  the  Fath- 
er doeth,  these  doeth  the  Son  likewise  ;"  thus  showing 
the  indissoluble  union  that  exists  between  them,  which 
proves  both  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  and  Divinity  of 
Christ. 

A  similar  declaration  of  the  Saviour  is  to  be  found  in 
John  xvi.  15:  "All  things  that  the  Father  hath  are 
mine  ;  therefore  said  I,  he  shall  take  of  mine,  and  shall 
shew  it  unto  you."  Here  the  Saviour,  in  the  plainest 
possible  manner,  gives  us  to  understand  that  he  possess- 
es all  that  belongs  to  the  Father.  Is,  then,  the  Father 
in  the  possession  of  infinite  attributes  ?  Is  he  eternal, 
omnipotent,  omniscient,  immutable,  and  omnipresent? 
If  so,  then  Jesus  Christ  must  possess  all  these  attributes  ; 
for  he  expressly  says,  "  All  the  Father  hath  are  mine." 

We  think  that  we  have  now  established,  to  the  satis- 
faction of  every  unprejudiced  mind,  the  position  that 
Jesus  Christ  possesses  the  peculiar  attributes  of  Deity, 
such  as,  eternal  existence,  omnipotent  power,  and  infi-  . 
nite  wisdom  ;  that  he  is  immutable  in  his  nature,  and 
that  he  fills  immensity  with  his  presence.  Now  let  us 
inquire  what  are  the  Scripture  views  of  God.  Do  not 
they  represent  him  to  us  as  a  being  possessing  these  very 
attributes  which  we  have  proved  was  possessed  by 
Christ  ?     And  were  an  Arian,  or  Socinian,  or  any  of 


128  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

those  modern  Semi-Arlans,  who  claim  to  be  distinguish- 
ed by  the  name  of  Christians,  called  upon  to  describe 
the  character  or  being  of  God,  would  they  not  readily 
say  that  he  is  an  eternal,  omnipotent,  omniscient,  and  om- 
nipresent being  ?  Undoubtedly  they  would  ;  for  what 
idea  have  we  of  God  aside  from  his  attributes  ?  "  The 
complex  idea,"  says  Mr.  Hare,  "  which  we  have  of  any 
being  is  the  aggregate  of  our  ideas  of  its  known  prop- 
erties." Thus  man  is  known  by  possessing  the  distin- 
guishing properties  which  belong  to  man.  In  like  man- 
ner, God  is  known  to  us  as  possessing  the  peculiar  attri- 
butes which  distinguish  him  from  all  other  beings. 
These  attributes  are,  eternal  existence,  omnipotent 
power,  infinite  wisdom,  and  unbounded  presence.  Strip 
him  of  these  peculiar  and  distinguishing  properties  or 
attributes,  and  he  is  no  longer  God.  And  any  being 
who  possesses  these  attributes  of  Deity  must  be  God. 
Jesus  Christ  possesses  them,  as  we  have  just  proved, 
therefore  he  must  be  God. 

Those  who  deny  the  essential  Divinity  of  Christ, 
vainly  endeavor  to  evade  the  force  of  the  above  reason- 
ing, by  saying  that  he  possessed  these  attributes  by  del- 
egation from  the  Father.  Bat  before  this  theory  can 
be  established,  there  are  several  insurmountable  difficul- 
ties to  be  removed. 

1.  If  Christ  possessed  these  attributes  by  delegation 
from  the  Father,  then  the  Father  is  no  longer  God  ;  for 
it  is  evident  that  to  be  God,  he  must  possess  all  the  dis- 
tinguishing attributes  of  God.  But  he  cannot  now  pos- 
sess them  if  he  has  given  them  all  to  Christ,  therefore 
it  is  evident,  upon  the  above  supposition,  that  he  is  no 
longer  God.  Thus  we  see  that  the  system  which  would 
give  Christ  these  attributes  by  delegation  from  the  Fath- 
er, robs  the  Father  of  all  his  glory — strips  him  of  his 
eternal  power  and  Godhead — divests  him  of  all  his 
attributes — drives  him  from  his  throne — and  reduces 
him  to  a  level  with  his  creatures ;  while,  at  the  same 
lime,  a  creature  (for  if  Christ  is  not  God^  he  is  a  creature) 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  129 

ascends  the   throne — is  invested  with  all  the  Divine 
,  attributes — clothed  with  all  the  plenitude  of  omnipotent 
power — and  sways  the  sceptre  ol"  the  universe. 

Such  are  the  awful  conclusions  to  which  this  system 
of  delegation  necessarily  drives  us.  And  will  men, 
yea,  men  who  profess  to  be  Christian  ministers, 
amidst  all  the  relii,dous  lit^ht  and  glory  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  and  with  the  Bible  in  their  hands,  stand  up  in 
its  defence? 

But  to  render  it  the  more  plausible,  and  to  strip  it  of 
some  of  its  more  glaring  absurdities,  it  is  sometimes 
said  that  the  Father  has  delegated  only  a  part  of  his  at- 
tributes to  the  Son — such  as  his  onmipotent  power — 
while  he  retains  the  rest  himself.  But  this,  instead  of 
removing  any  of  the  difficulties  which  attend  the  theory 
of  those  modern  divines  who  advocate  this  system  of 
delegation,  only  serv^es  to  sink  them  still  deeper  in  con- 
fusion, and  to  develop  still  clearer  the  absurdity  of  their 
cause  ;  for  if  the  Fatlier  has  given  a  part  of  his  attri- 
butes to  the  Son,  it  is  evident  that  he  is  left  imperfect, 
and  must,  therefore,  cease  to  be  God ;  for  to  be  God, 
he  must  be  perfect,  and  in  the  entire  possession  of  each 
and  every  attribute  which  belongs  to  God.  But  if  he 
has  given  part  of  his  essential  attributes  away  to  Christ, 
it  is  evident  that  he  cannot  now  possess  them  all ;  for  it 
would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  he  could  give  away 
any  of  his  attributes,  and  at  the  same  time  retain  them 
all  himself.  It  is,  therefore,  evident  that,  if  the  idea 
that  the  Father  has  given  away  a  part  of  the  essential 
attributes  of  his  nature  be  correct,  the  Father  must  be 
imperfect ;  and  if  imperfect,  he  is  not  God,  for  God  is  a 
perfect  being.  We  therefore  see  that  this  theory  also 
robs  the  Father,  as  well  as  the  one  which  goes  before 
it.  But  it  not  only  robs  the  Father,  but  also  the  Son ; 
for  if  he  has  only  a  part  of  the  Divine  attributes,  it  is 
evident  that  he  too  is  an  imperfect  and  finite  being  :  con- 
sequently, according  to  our  opponents,  we  are  left  with- 
out a  God,  For,  according  to  their  theory,  the  Father  has. 


130  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

^ven  away  a  part  of  his  attributes,  therefore  he  is  im- 
perfect ;  Jesus  Christ  has  received  but  a  part  of  them, 
therefore  he  is  imperfect ;  and  if  the  Father  and  the 
Son  are  both  imperfect,  neither  of  them  can  be  God  ; 
for,  as  above  remarked,  God  is  a  perfect  being  ;  and  if 
neither  the  Father  nor  the  Son  be  God,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  nothing  but  an  attribute,  or,  what  is  worse,  an 
unintelHgent  agent,  then  we  are  left  without  a  God,  con- 
sequently without  a  moral  governor  of  the  universe. 
May  we  not,  then,  apply  to  the  advocates  of  this  system 
of  delegation  the  following  words  of  the  poet : 

"They  labored  hard;    O,  labor  worse  than  nought! 
And  toiled  with  dark  and  crooked  reasoning", 
To  make  the  fair  and  lovely  earth,  which  dwelt 
In  sight  of  heaven,  a  cold,  and  fatherless, 
Forsaken  thing,  that  wandered  on,  forlorn, 
Undestined,  uncompassioned,  unupheld; 
A  vapor  eddying  in  the  whirl  of  chance, 
And  soon  to  vanish  everlastingly." 

But  we  are  told,  in  the  next  place,  that,  notwith- 
standing the  Father  has  given  a  part  or  all  of  his  attri* 
butes  to  Jesus  Christ,  he  is  still  perfect,  because  he  can 
give  them  away,  and  at  the  same  time  retain  them  all 
himself.  In  answer  to  this,  I  would  say,  in  the  first 
place,  that  this  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  It  is  mani- 
festly absurd  to  suppose  that  God  could  give  any  of  his 
attributes  to  a  creature,  however  high  that  creature  might 
stand  in  the  scale  of  being  ;  and  much  more  absurd  to 
suppose  that  he  could  give  them  away,  and  at  the  sanie 
time  retain  them  all  himself. 

But  allowing  all  that  the  advocates  of  this  theory 
contend  for,  grant  that  the  Father  has  delegated  all  of 
his  attributes  to  his  Son,  and  still  retains  them  all  him- 
self, still  there  is  another  difficulty  to  be  removed,  a 
difficulty  which  no  one  who  denies  the  Divinity  of 
Christ  can  possibly  surmount,  and  one  which  eftectually 
destroys  this  system  of  delegation.     If,  as  the  advocates 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  131 

of  this  theory  contend,  the  Father  has  delegated  his 
attrihutes  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  at  the  same  time  retains? 
them  all  himself,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  he  not 
true — if,  as  our  opponents  contend,  Jesus  Christ  does 
not  exist  in  the  Godhead  with  the  Father,  but  is  a  dis- 
tinct and  separate  being,  then  it  must  follow  that  there 
are  two  Gods :  for  there  are  two  separate  and  indepen- 
dent beings,  each  perfect  in  his  nature,  possessing  all 
the  distinguishing  attributes  of  the  Divine  Being.  But 
the  Scripture  doctrine  is,  '•'  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord 
our  God  is  one  Lord ;"  "  I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is 
none  else ;  there  is  no  God  besides  me."  We  are, 
therefore,  compelled  to  reject  this  theory  that  Christ 
possessed  the  Divine  attributes  by  delegation,  as  un- 
scriptural  and  false. 

But  the  Divine  attributes  cannot  be  possesed  with- 
out the  Divine  nature.  "  To  men,"  says  Hare,  "  who 
are  but  finite  beings,  God  can  give  a  beginning,  depen- 
dent, finite,  and  stable  existence ;"  and  the  same  may 
be  said  of  all  created  beings.  "  He  can  make  them 
knowing,  wise  and  powerful.  But  (with  reverence)  he 
cannot  give  to  them  his  Infinite  perfections.  Their 
minds  are  finite,  and  incapable  of  infinitude.  If  Jesus 
Christ  was  a  man  or  some  super-angelic  being,  however 
highly  exalted,  he  could  not  possess  the  Divine  perfec- 
tions ;  because,  if  he  is  anything  less  than  God,  he  must 
be  a  finite  being.  To  possess  the  Infinite  perfections  of 
Deity,  he  must  possess  his  Infinite  nature.  Can  a  being 
who  began  to  exist  be  without  beginning,"  or  from 
everlasting  ?  "  Can  a  being  who  is  necessarily  limited 
be  omnipresent  ?  Can  any  thing  less  than  an  infinite 
mind  know  all  things  ?  Or  can  any  thing  but  an  un- 
controllable and  all-controlling  mind  be  omnipotent? 
or  anything  but  an  all  perfect  mind  be  immutable  ? 
There  is  an  infinite  distance  between  God  and  the  great- 
est of  his  creatures.  To  talk,  therefore,  of  investing  a 
creature  with  infinite  attributes,  would  be  as  preposter- 
ous as  to  talk  of  suspending  a  world  upon  an  egg  shell 


132  DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST. 

against  the  power  of  gravity  in  the  solar  system.  But 
Jesus  Christ  possesses  these  infinite  attributes  of  Deity, 
therefore  can  be  no  creature,  but  truly  a  Divine  being, 
for  there  can  be  no  Divinity  more  proper  than  that 
which  possesses  Divine  perfections. 

When  Unitarians  are  not  immediately  engaged  in 
impugning  the  Divinity  of  the  Saviour,  they  can  per- 
ceive the  truth  of  these  remarks.  Thus,  Mr.  Grun- 
dy, after  enumerating  the  supposed  attributes  of  the 
Devil,  says,  "  These  attributes  are  all  Divine,  and  if 
there  actually  be  a  being  possessing  these  attributes,  that 
being  ought  to  be  a  Deity." 

There  is,  however,  one  passage  of  sacred  writ  which 
is  thought  by  our  opponents  to  favor  their  views  ;  this  is 
Matt,  xxviii.  18  :  "  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  hea- 
ven and  earth."  But  this  text,  instead  of  aiding  Uni- 
tarians in  their  efforts  to  destroy  the  doctrine  of  the  su- 
preme Deity  of  Christ,  is  a  strong  argument  in  its  de- 
fence. For  if  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  is  given 
to  him,  he  must  be  in  the  possession  of  all  power,  and 
if  in  the  possession  of  all  power,  there  can  be  no  pow- 
er which  he  does  not  possess  ;  consequently,  he  must  be 
almighty,  and  if  almighty  he  must  be  God,  for  God  is 
the  only  almighty  being.  And  if  he  is  God,  or  a  being 
possessing  almighty  power,  he  must  exist  with  the  Fa- 
ther and  Holy  Spirit  in  the  undivided  Trinity,  and  with 
them  constitute  but  one  being — one  supreme  Jehovah, 
If  this  be  not  admitted,  then  there  must  be  two  sepa- 
rate and  independent  beings,  each  in  the  possession  of 
almighty  power  ;  therefore,  neither  of  them  can  be  su- 
preme, for  a  supreme  being  is  one  whose  power  excells 
all  others.  And  if  neither  of  them  are  supreme,  then 
neither  of  them  can  be  God,  for  God  is  a  supreme 
being. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Harnion,  who  wrote  in  defence  of  the 
Trinity,  in  opposition  to  Mr.  IMillard,  author  of  the  True 
Messiah,  a  work  highly  esteemed  by  our  opponents, 
thus  remarks  on  the  passage  under  consideration :  "  If 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  133 

Jesus  Christ  was  not  the  true  God,  and  all  power  was 
given  into  his  hands,  then  he  possessed  all  the  powers  of 
the  self-existent  God.  According  to  Mr.  M.'s  notion," 
that  Christ  is  not  God,  "  life  must  either  have  possessed 
it  alone  and  left  the  Father  destitute  of  all  power,  or 
there  were  two  self-existent  Gods  at  the  same  time." 
To  which  Mr.  Millard  answers,  "  Is  it  possible  that  Mr. 
H.  is  so  short-sighted  as  to  suppose  his  readers  will  not 
see  that  he  is  raising  his  objections  against  Scripture  ? 
Christ  said,  '  all  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and 
in  earth,'  and  Mr.  H.  intimates  that  this  cannot  be,  or  it 
would  leave  the  Father  without  any  power,  or  suppose 
there  were  two  self-existent  Gods  at  the  same  time.  It 
is  to  be  hoped  he  will  settle  this  controversy  with  the 
Son  of  God,  before  he  meets  him  in  judgment." 

Although  Mr.  Millard  so  severely  censures  Mr.  Har- 
mon in  the  above  quotation,  yet,  in  the  very  next  para- 
graph, he  is  guilty  of  the  same  offence.  He  says,  while 
speaking  of  the  passage  above  quoted,  "  Relative  to 
the  extent  of  power  given  to  Christ,  it  is  highly  proba- 
ble to  me,  that  it  was  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  re- 
lating to  his  kingdom  or  church."  May  we  not  then 
inquire  of  him,  as  he  does  of  Mr.  Harmon,  is  it  possi* 
ble  that  he  is  so  short-sighted  as  to  suppose  his  readers 
will  not  see  he  is  raising  his  objections  against  Scripture, 
and  not  against  Mr.  H.  or  any  other  Trinitarian  ? 
Christ  said  all  power  is  given  unto  him  in  heaven  and  in 
earth,  and  Mr.  M.  intimates  that  this  is  not  so,  and 
limits  his  power  to  the  government  of  his  Church,  thus 
contradicting  the  Saviour.  "  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  he 
will  settle  this  controversy  with  the  Son  of  God,  before 
he  meets  him  in  judgment." 

But  if  our  opponents  believe  the  power  here  alluded 
to  is  but  a  limited  power,  why  is  this  passage  quoted  to 
prove  that  Christ  possesses  omnipotent  power  by  dele- 
gation from  the  Father  ?  Or  why  is  it  brought  forward 
to  show  that  Trinitarians  raise  their  objections  against 
Scripture,  when  they  object  to  this  system  of  delega- 
12 


134  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST^ 

tion  ?  If,  as  Mr.  Millard  says,  this  power  extends  only 
to  the  church,  it  certainly  must  be  a  limited  power,  and 
therefore  might  have  been  given  to  his  human  nature, 
while  in  his  Divine  nature  he  received  nothing.  And  if 
the  text  includes  all  power,  we  see  no  difficulty  in  ma- 
king this  application  of  it.  "  For  in  him  dwelt  all  the 
fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily."  "  God  was  in 
Christ"  imparting  omnipotent  power  to  the  humanity  in 
a  similar  manner  to  that  in  which  the  soul  of  men  im- 
parts energy  to  the  body.  But  if  all  power  was  given 
to  Christ  as  a  man,  our  opponents  inquire  with  much 
triumph,  why  cannot  it  be  given  to  any  other  man  ? 
The  reason  is  obvious.  In  no  other  man  or  created  be- 
ing does  this  fullness  of  the  Godhead  dwell.  I,  how- 
ever, wish  the  reader  to  remember,  that  those  who  deny 
the  supreme  Deity  of  Christ,  do  not  believe  that  the 
power  referred  to  in  the  text  is  omnipotent  power  ;  con- 
sequently, their  theory  that  Christ  possessed  this  or  any 
other  attribute  by  delegation  from  his  Father,  can  de- 
rive no  support  from  this  passage.  The  position,  then, 
which  we  have  taken,  that  Christ  possessed  all  the  Di- 
vine attributes  as  the  inherent  attributes  of  his  own  na- 
ture, remains  untouched.  Being  supported  by  numer- 
ous and  overwhelming  arguments,  it  effectually  destroys 
the  Unitarian  hypothesis  and  establishes  the  supreme  Di- 
vinity of  our  blessed  Saviour,  beyond  all  possibility  of 
contradiction. 

X.  Christ  is  an  object  of  religious  worship,  and  there- 
fore must  be  God,  for  our  Saviour  says,'  "  thou  shalt 
worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou 
serve*"  "  Instances  of  falling  down  at  the  feet  of  Jesus 
and  worshipping  him  are  so  frequent  in  the  Gospel,  that 
it  is  not  necessary  to  select  the  instances  which  are  so 
familiar  ;  and  though  we  allow  that  the  word  worship  is 
sometimes  used  to  express  that  lowly  reverence  with 
which,  in  the  East,  it  has  been  always  customary  to  sa- 
lute persons  considered  as  greatly  superior,  and  espe- 
cially rulers  and  sovereigns,  it  is  yet  the  same  word 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  135 

which,  in  a  great  number  of  instances,  is  used  to  express 
the  worship  of  the  Supreme  God.  We  are,  then,  to 
collect  the  intention  of  the  act  of  worship,  whether  do 
signed  as  a  token  of  profound  civil  respect,  or  of  real 
and  Divine  adoration,  from  the  circumstances  of  the  in- 
stances on  record.  When  a  leper  comes  and  '  wor- 
ships '  Christ,  professing  to  believe  that  he  had  the 
power  of  healing  diseases,  and  that  in  himself,  which 
power  he  could  exercise  at  his  will,  all  which  he  express- 
es by  saying,  '  Lord,  if  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make 
me  clean,'  we  see  a  Jew  retaining  that  faith  of  the  Jew- 
ish church  in  its  purity  which  had  been  corrupted  among 
so  many  of  his  nation,  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a 
Divine  Person  ;  and,  viewing  our  Lord  under  that  char- 
acter, he  regarded  his  miraculous  powers  as  original  and 
personal,  and  so  hesitated  not  to  worship  him.  Here, 
then,  is  a  case  in  which  the  circumstances  clearly  show 
tliat  the  worship  was  religious  and  supreme.  When  the 
man  who  had  been  cured  of  blindness  by  Jesus,  and 
who  had  defended  his  prophetic  character  before  the 
council,  before  he  knew  that  he  had  a  higher  character 
tlian  that  of  a  prophet,  was  met  in  private  by  Jesus,  and 
instructed  in  the  additional  fact,  that  he  was  *  the  Son 
OF  God,'  he  worshipped  him.  ^  Jesus  heard,  that  they 
had  cast  him  out,  and  when  he  had  found  him,  he  said 
unto  him,  Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son  of  God  ?  He 
answered  and  said.  Who  is  he.  Lord,  that  I  might  be- 
lieve on  him  ?  And  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Thou  hast 
both  seen  him,  and  it  is  he  that  talketh  with  thee.  And 
he  said,  Lord,  I  believe  ;  and  he  worshipped  him  :' — 
worshipped  him,  be  it  observed,  under  his  character 
•'  Son  of  God,'  a  title  which  was  regarded  by  the  Jews 
as  implying  actual  Divinity,  and  which  the  man  under- 
stood to  raise  Jesus  far  above  the  rank  of  a  mere  pro- 
phet. The  worship  paid  by  this  man  must,  therefore,  in 
its  intention,  have  been  supreme,  for  it  was  offered  to  an 
acknowledged  Divine  Person,  the  Son  of  God.  When 
the  disciples,  fully  yielding  to  the  demonstration  of  our 


136  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

Lord's  Messiahship,  arising  out  of  a  series  of  splendid 
miracles,  recognised  him  also  under  his  personal  char- 
acter, '  they  came  and  worshipped  him,  saying,  Of  a 
truth  thou  art  the  Son  of  God  !'  Matt.  xiv.  33.  When 
Peter,  upon  the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes,  '  fell  at  his 
feet,'  and  said,  '  Depart  from  me,  for  I  am  a  sinful  man, 
O  Lord,'  these  expressions  themselves  mark  as  strongly 
the  awe  and  apprehension  which  is  produced  in  the 
breast  of  a  sinful  man,  when  he  feels  himself  in  the  pre- 
sence of  Divinity  itself,  as  when  Isaiah  exclaims,  in  his 
vision  of  the  Divine  glory,  '  Wo  is  me,  for  I  am  undone, 
for  I  am  a  man  of  unclean  lips,  and  dwell  among  a  peo- 
ple of  unclean  lips,  for  mine  eyes  have  seen  the  King, 
the  Lord  of  Hosts.' 

''  But  to  proceed  wath  instances  of  worship  subsequent 
to  our  Lord's  resurrection  and  ascension  :  '  He  was  part- 
ed from  them,  and  carried  up  into  heaven,  and  they 
WORSHIPPED  him,  and  returned  to  Jemsalem  with  great 
joy,'  Luke  xxiv.  51,  52.  Here  the  act  must  necessari- 
ly have  been  one  of  Divine  adoration,  since  it  was  per- 
formed after  '  he  was  parted  from  them,'  and  cannot  be 
resolved  into  the  customary  token  of  personal  respect 
paid  to  superiors.  This  was  always  done  in  the  pre- 
sence  of  the  superior  ;  never  by  the  Jews  in  his  absence. 

"  When  the  Apostles  were  assembled  to  fill  up  the 
place  of  Judas,  the  lots  being  prepared,  they  pray, 
*  Thou,  Lord,  who  knowest  the  hearts  of  all  men,  show 
whether  of  these  men  thou  hast  chosen.'  That  this 
prayer  is  addressed  to  Christ  is  clear,  from  its  being  his 
special  prerogative  to  choose  his  own  disciples,  who, 
therefore,  styled  themselves  '  Apostles,'  not  of  the  Fa- 
ther, but  'of  Jesus  Christ.'  Here,  then,  is  a  direct  act 
of  worship,  because  an  act  of  prayer ;  and  our  Lord  is 
addressed  as  he  who  '  knows  the  hearts  of  all  men,' 
Nor  is  this  more  than  he  himself  claims  in  the  Revela- 
tion, '  And  all  the  churches  shall  know  that  I  am  he  that 
searcheth  the  reins  and  the  heart.' 

'^'  When  Stephen,  the  protomai'tyr,  was  stoned,  the 


blVlNlTY    OF    CHRIST.  137 

writer  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  records  two  instan- 
ces of  prayer  offered  to  our  Lord  by  this  man  '  full  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,'  and  therefore,  according  to  this  decla- 
ration, under  Divine  inspiration.  '  Lord  Jesus  !  re- 
ceive MY  SPIRIT !'  '  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to 
THEIR  CHARGE !'  In  the  former  he  acknowledges 
Christ  to  be  the  disposer  of  the  eternal  states  of  men  : 
in  the  latter,  he  acknowledges  him  to  be  the  governor 
and  judge  of  men,  having  power  to  remit,  pass  by,  or 
visit  their  sins.  All  these  are  manifestly  Divine  acts, 
which  sufficiently  show  that  St.  Stephen  addressed  his 
prayers  to  Christ  as  God." 

Unitarians,  however,  tell  us  that  the  case  of  Stephen 
is  an  inconsiderable  instance,  and  therefore  so  much 
stress  ought  not  to  be  laid  upon  it.  But  why  is  it  in- 
considerable ?  Is  it  because  it  was  only  an  ejaculation  ? 
Ejaculations  are  often  prayers  of  the  most  fervid  kind  ; 
the  most  expressive  of  self-abasement  and  adoration. 
Is  it  for  its  brevity  that  it  is  inconsiderable  ?  What, 
then,  is  the  precise  length  of  words  which  is  requisite  to 
make  a  prayer  an  act  of  worship  ?  Was  this  petition 
preferred  on  an  occasion  of  distress,  on  which  a  Divini- 
ty might  be  naturally  invoked  ?  Was  it  a  petition  for 
a  succour  which  none  but  a  Divinity  could  grant  ?  If 
this  was  the  case,  it  was  surely  an  act  of  worship.  Is 
the  situation  of  the  worshipper  the  circumstance  which 
lessens  the  authority  of  his  example  ?  They  suppose, 
perhaps,  some  consternation  of  his  faculties,  arising  from 
distress  and  fear.  The  history  justifies  no  such  supposi- 
tion. It  describes  the  utterance  of  the  final  prayer,  as 
a  deliberate  act  of  one  who  knew  his  situation,  and 
possessed  his  understanding.  After  praying  for  himself, 
he  kneels  down  to  pray  for  his  persecutors  :  and  such 
was  the  composure  with  which  he  died,  although  the 
manner  of  his  death  was  the  most  tumultuous  and  tem- 
fying,  that,  as  if  he  had  expired  quietly  upon  his  bed,  the 
sacred  historian  says,  that  "  he  fell  asleep."  If  Unita- 
rians, therefore,  would  insinuate,  that  St.  Stephen  was 
12* 


138  DiriNlTY    OF    CHRIST.  ^ 

not  himself,  when  he  sent  forth  this  short  ejaculatoiy 
address  to  Christ,  the  history  refutes  then?.  If  he  was 
himself,  they  cannot  justify  his  prayer  to  Christ,  while 
they  deny  that  Christ  is  God,  upon  any  principle  that 
might  not  equally  justify  men  in  praying  to  the  blessed 
Stephen.  If  St.  Stephen,  in  the  full  possession  of  his 
faculties,  prayed  to  him  who  is  no  God,  why  do  we  re- 
proach the  Romanist,  when  he  chants  the  litany  of  his 
saints  ? 

^'  St.  Paul  also  prays  to  Christ,  conjointly  with  the 
Father,  in  behalf  of  the  Thessalonians.  '  Now  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself,  and  God,  even  our  Fa- 
ther, which  hath  loved  us,  and  hath  given  us  everlasting 
consolation,  and  good  hope  through  grace,  comfort  your 
hearts,  and  establish  you  in  every  good  worJc,^  2  Thess, 
ii.  16,  17.  In  like  manner  he  invokes  our  Lord  to  grant 
his  spiritual  presence  to  Timothy  :  '  The  Lord  Jesus  be 
with  thy  spirit,'  2  Tim.  iv.  22.  The  invoking  of  Christ 
is,  indeed,  adduced  by  St.  Paul  as  a  distinctive  charac- 
teristic of  Christians,  so  that  among  all  the  primitive 
churches  this  practice  must  have  been  universal.  '  Unto 
the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,  to  them  that 
are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints,  with 
all  that  IN  every  place  call  upon  the  name  of  Je- 
sus Christ  our  Lord,  both  theirs  and  ours,'  1  Cor.  i.  2. 
'  It  appears,  from  the  expression  here  and  elsewhere 
used,  that  to  invocate  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  was  a  practice  characterizing  and  distinguishing 
Christians  from  infidels.' — (Dr.  Benson.)  Thus  St. 
Paul  is  said,  before  his  conversion,  to  have  had  '  authori- 
ty from  the  chief  priests  to  bind  all  that  call  upon 
thy  name.'  In  the  Revelation,  too,  we  find  St.  John 
worshipping  Christ,  '  falling  at  his  feet  as  one  dead.' 
St.  Paul  also  declares  '  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every 
knee  shall  bow,'  which,  in  Scripture  language,  signifies 
an  act  of  religious  worship.  ^  For  this  cause  I  how  my 
knees  to  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.' 

But  this  homage  and  adoration  of  Christ  is  not  con- 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  139 

fined  to  men  ;  it  is  practised  among  heavenly  beings- 
"And  again,  when  he  bringeth  in  the  first-begotten  into 
the  world,  he  saith.  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God 
WORSHIP  HIM."  The  Apostle  recurs  here  to  a  former 
assertion  of  his,  that  Jesus  is  higher  than  the  angels, 
that  he  is  none  of  those  who  can  be  called  ordinary 
angels  or  messengers,  but  one  of  the  most  extraordinary 
kind,  and  the  object  of  worship  to  all  the  angels  of  God. 
To  worship  any  creature  is  idolatry,  and  God  resents 
idolatry  more  than  any  other  evil.  Jesus  Christ  can  be 
no  creature,  else  the  angels  who  worship  him  would  be, 
must  be  guilty  of  idolatry,  and  God  the  author  of  that 
idolatry,  who  commanded  those  angels  to  worship 
Christ. 

These  words,  "  and  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship 
him,  are  taken  from  Psalm  xcvii.  7,  where  they  are 
translated  by  the  Septuagint,  worship  him  all  ye  angels. 
This  Psalm  the  Apostle,  therefore,  understood  of  Christ, 
and  in  this  the  old  Jewish  interpreters  agree  with  him ; 
and  though  he  is  not  mentioned  in  it  by  any  of  his  usual 
Old  Testament  titles,  except  that  of  Jehovah,  it  clearly 
predicts  the  overthrow  of  idolatry  by  the  introduction 
of  the  kingdom  of  this  Jehovah.  It  follows,  then,  that, 
as  idolatry  was  not  overthrown  by  Judaism,  but  by  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,  it  is  Christ,  as  the  head  and  author 
of  this  kingdom,  of  whom  the  Psalmist  speaks,  and 
whom  he  sees  receiving  the  worship  of  the  angels  of 
God  upon  its  introduction  and  establishment.  This, 
also,  agrees  with  the  words  by  which  the  Apostle  intro- 
duces the  quotation.  "And  again,  when  he  bringeth 
in  the  first-begotten  into  the  world,^^  the  habitable  world, 
which  intimates  that  it  was  upon  some  solemn  occasion, 
when  engaged  in  some  solemn  act,  that  the  angels  were 
commanded  to  worship  him,  and  this  is  represented  in 
the  xcvii.  Psalm  as  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom. 
-  The  argument  of  the  Apostle  is  thus  made  clear  ;  he 
proves  Christ  superior  to  angels,  and  therefore  Divine, 
because  angels  themselves  are  commanded  "  to  worship 


140  DIVINITY  OF    CHRIST. 

him."  Nor  is  this  the  only  prophetic  psalm  in  which 
the  religious  worship  of  Messiah  is  predicted.  The 
72d  Psalm,  alone,  is  full  of  this  doctrine.  "  They  shall 
FEAR  thee  as  long  as  the  sun  and  moon  endure."  "  All 
kings  shall  fall  down  (or,  worship)  before  him  ;  all 
nations  shall  serve  him."  ^'  Prayer  shall  be  made 
ever  for  (or,  to)  him,  and  daily  shall  he  be  praised." 

Finally,  as  to  the  direct  worship  of  Christ,  the  book 
of  Revelation,  in  its  scenec  representations,  exhibits 
him  as,  equally  with  the  Father,  the  object  of  the  wor- 
ship of  angels  and  of  glorified  saints  ;  and,  in  chapter 
5th,  places  every  creature  in  the  universe,  the  inhabit- 
ants of  hell  only  excepted,  in  prostrate  adoration  at  his 
footstool.  ''And  every  creature  which  is  in  heaven,  and 
on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  such  as  are  in  the 
sea,  and  all  that  are  in  them,  heard  I  saying.  Blessing, 
and  honor,  and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  him  that  sit- 
teth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb  for  ever  and 
ever." —  Watson. 

All  parts  of  the  creation,  animate  and  inanimate, 
are  represented  here,  by  that  figure  of  speech  called 
prosopopoeia  or  personification,  as  giving  praise  to  the 
Lord  Jesus,  because  by  him  all  things  were  created. 
We  find  the  whole  creation  gives  precisely  the  same 
praise,  and  in  the  same  terms,  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  un- 
doubtedly meant  here  by  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  as  they 
give  to  God  who  sits  upon  the  throne.  Now  if  Jesus 
Christ  were  not  properly  God,  this  would  be  idolatry,  as 
it  would  be  giving  to  the  creature  what  belongs  to  the 
Creator. —  Clarke. 

To  these  instances  are  to  be  added  all  the  doxolo- 
gies  to  Christ,  in  common  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  all  the  benedictions  made  in  his  name  in  com- 
mon with  tlioirs  ;  for  all  these  are  forms  of  worship. 
The  first  consist  of  ascriptions  of  equal  and  Divine 
honors,  with  grateful  recognitions  of  the  Being  address- 
ed, as  the  author  of  benefits  received  ;  the  second  are  a 
solemn  blessing  of  others  in  the  name   of  God,   and 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  141 

were  derived  from  the  practice  of  the  Jewish  priests  and 
the  still  older  patriarchs,  who  blessed  others  in  tlie  name 
of  Jehovah,  as  his  representatives. 

Of  the  first,  the  following  may  be  given,  as  a  few 
out  of  many  instances.  "  The  Lord  shall  deliver  me 
from  every  evil  work,  and  will  preserve  me  to  his  heav- 
enly kingdom :  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever  and  ever," 
2  Tim.  iv.  18.  "  But  grow  in  grace,  and  in  the  knowl- 
edo^e  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ :  to  him  be 
GLORY  both  now  and  forever.  Amen,"  2  Pet.  iii.  18. 
^'  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests 
unto  God  and  his  Father  ;  to  him  be  glory  and  domin- 
ion for  ever  and  ever.  Amen,"  Rev.  i.  5,  6.  "  When 
we  consider  the  great  diiference  between  these  doxolo- 
gies  and  the  commendations  but  sparingly  given  in  the 
Scriptures  to  mere  men,  the  serious  and  reverential 
manner  in  which  they  are  introduced,  and  the  superla- 
tive praise  they  convey,  so  far  surpassing  what  humani- 
ty can  deserve,  we  cannot  but  suppose  that  the  being  to 
whom  they  refer  is  really  Divine.  The  ascription  of 
eternal  glory  and  everlasting  dominion,  if  addressed  to 
any  creature,  however  exalted,  would  be  idolatrous  and 
profane."  Of  benedictions,  the  commencement  and 
conclusion  of  several  of  the  epistles  furnish  instances, 
so  regular  in  their  form,  as  to  make  it  clearly  appear  that 
the  Apostles  and  the  priests  of  the  New  Testament 
constantly  blessed  the  people  ministerially  in  the  name 
of  Christ,  as  one  of  the  blessed  Trinity.  This  consid- 
eration alone  shows  that  the  benedictions  are  not,  as 
Unitarians  would  take  them,  to  be  considered  as  curso- 
ry expressions  of  good  will.  "Grace  to  you,  and 
peace  from  God  our  Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
This,  with  little  variation,  is  the  common  form  of  salu- 
tation ;  and  the  usual  parting  benediction  is,  "  The 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  love  of  God,  and 
the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  be  with  you  all." 
In   answer  to   the  Unitarian  perversion,  that  these  are 


142  DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST. 

mere  "  wishes,"  it  has  been  well  and  wisely  observed, 
that  "  this  objection  overlooks,  or  notices  very  slightly, 
the  point  on  which  the  whole  question  turns,  the  nature 
of  the  blessings  sought,  and  the  qualities  which  they 
imply  in  the  Person  as  whose  donation  they  are  delib- 
erately desired.  These  blessings  are  not  of  that  kind 
which  one  creature  is  competent  to  bestow  upon  an- 
other. They  refer  to  the  judicial  state  of  an  accounta- 
ble being  before  God,  to  the  remission  of  moral  offen- 
ces, to  the  production  and  preservation  of  certain  mental 
qualities  which  none  can  efficaciously  and  immediately 
give  but  he  who  holds  the  dominion  of  human  minds 
and  feeling,  and  to  the  enjoyments  of  supreme  and  end- 
less felicity.  They  dire  grace,  mercy,  and  peace.  Grace, 
the  free  favor  of  the  Eternal  Majesty  to  those  who  have 
forfeited  every  claim  to  it,  such  favor  as  in  its  own  na- 
ture and  in  the  contemplation  of  the  suplicant,  is  the 
sole  and  effective  cause  of  deliverance  from  the  great- 
est evils,  and  acquisition  of  the  greatest  good.  Mercy, 
the  compassion  of  infinite  goodness,  conferring  its  rich- 
est bestowments  of  holiness  and  happiness  on  the  ruin- 
ed, miserable,  and  helpless.  Peace,  the  tranquil  and 
delightful  feeling  which  results  from  the  rational  hope 
of  possessing  these  enjoyments.  These  are  the  high- 
est blessings  that  Omnipotent  Benevolence  can  give,  or 
a  dependent  nature  receive.  To  desire  such  blessings, 
either  in  the  mode  of  direct  address  or  in  that  of  preca- 
tory wish,  from  any  being  who  is  not  possessed  of  om- 
nipotent goodness,  would  be,  not  '  innocent  and  proper,* 
but  sinful  and  absurd  in  the  highest  degree.  When, 
therefore,  we  find  every  Apostle  whose  epistles  are  ex- 
tant, pouring  out  his  '  expressions  of  desire,'  with  the 
utmost  simplicity  and  energy,  for  these  blessings,  as  pro- 
ceeding from  'our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'  equally  with 
*  God  our  Father,'  we  cannot  but  regard  it  as  the  just 
and  necessary  conclusion  that  Christ  and  the  Father  are 
one  in  the  perfection  which  originates  the  highest  bless^ 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST*  143 

>ngs,  and    in    the    honor    due    for    the    gift    of   those 
blessings." 

So  clearly  does  the  New  Testament  show  that  su- 
preme worship  was  paid  to  Christ,  as  well  as  to  the 
Father  ;  and  the  practice  obtained,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
as  a  matter  quite  undisputed  in  the  primitive  Church, 
and  has  so  continued,  in  all  orthodox  Churches  to  this 
day.  Thus  heathen  writers  represented  the  first  Chris- 
tians as  worshippers  of  Christ ;  and,  as  for  the  practice 
of  the  primitive  Church,  it  is  not  necessary  to  quote 
passages  from  the  fathers,  which  are  so  well  known,  or 
so  easily  found  in  all  books  which  treat  on  this  subject. 
It  is  sufficient  evidence  of  the  practice,  that  when,  in 
the  fourth  century,  the  Arians  taught,  that  our  Lord  was 
a  super-angelic  creature  only,  they  departed  not,  in  the 
instance  of  worship,  from  the  homage  paid  to  him  in 
the  universal  Church  ;  but  continued  to  adore  Christ. 
On  this  ground  the  orthodox  justly  branded  them  with 
idolatry  ;  and,  in  order  to  avoid  the  force  of  the  charge, 
they  invented  these  sophistical  distinctions  as  to  supe- 
rior and  inferior  worship,  which  the  Papists,  in  later 
times,  introduced,  in  order  to  excuse  the  worship  of 
saints  and  angels.  (  TVcttson.)  And  in  this  they  have 
been  followed  by  many  modern  Unitarians,  especially 
by  that  class  who  call  themselves  Christians,  as  will 
appear  from  Mr.  Millard's  True  Messiah,  pp.  171, 
where  he  uses  the  following  language  :  "  That  I  worship 
the  Son  of  God,  is  a  fact ;  yet  I  do  not  worship  him  as 
the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

But  were  this  distinction  founded  in  truth,  it  would  be 
of  but  little  service  to  the  cause,  in  defence  of  which 
it  is  applied  ;  because  it  has  already  been  shown  that 
Christ  received  supreme  worship  ;  and  in  addition  to 
what  has  been  said,  we  would  also  remark,  that  he  who 
requires  us  to  think  of  him  as  we  do  of  the  true  God, 
would  certainly  have  us  worship  him  as  such.  But 
Christ  would  have  us  think  of  him  as  we  do  of  the  true 
God ;  for   he  attributes  to  himself  the  perfections  of 


144  DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST. 

God,  and  he  claims  an  equality  with  him.  •  Consequent- 
ly, he  would  have  us  think  of  him,  as  we  ought  to  do 
of  God.  He  who  speaks  of  himself,  or  directs  others 
to  speak  of  him  as  of  the  true  God,  would  be  acknowl- 
edged and  worshipped  as  such.  But  Christ  speaks, 
and  would  be  spoken  of  by  us  as  the  true  God.  This 
appears  from  his  taking  the  names,  and  ascribing  to 
himself  the  ^^  orks  of  God,  If  not,  why  does  he  as- 
sume such  names,  why  does  he  declare  that  he  perform- 
ed such  works  as  are  proper  to  God,  if  he  would  not 
have  us  speak  of  him  as  God  ?  What !  shall  he  speak 
of  himself  as  God — shall  he  assert  that  he  created  all 
things,  and  performed  the  works  of  God — and,  after  all, 
be  unwilling  that  ive  should  speak  of  him  as  God? 
Absurd  to  imagine,  impossible  to  prove.  He  who  re- 
quires we  should  do  that  for  him  which  we  cannot  law- 
fully do  for  any  but  the  true  God,  expects  to  be  wor- 
shipped as  such.  But  Christ  requires  us  to  do  that  for 
him,  w  hich  we  ought  not  to  do  for  any  but  God.  This 
appears  from  the  fact  that  we  are  bound  to  love  God 
above  all  things :  consequently,  an  affection  so  ardent, 
and  a  duty  so  high,  are  due  to  none  but  God.  We 
ought,  however,  to  love  Jesus  above  all  things  ;  to  love 
him  more  than  our  lives,  which,  of  all  things  in  the 
world,  are  the  dearest  to  us.  He  requires  that  we  should 
suffer  martyrdom  for  his  sake  ;  and  by  so  doing,  enjoins 
a  duty  which  we  do  not,  which  we  cannot  owe  to  any 
but  God.  None  of  the  Prophets,  nor  any  of  the  Apos- 
tles ever  said,  "  He  that  forsaketh  not  wife  and  chil- 
dren, and  houses  and  lands,  yea,  and  his  own  life,  for 
my  sake,  is  not  worthy  of  me."  Supreme  worship  was, 
therefore,  paid  to  Christ. 

This  will  also  appear  evident  if  we  take  into  consid- 
eration the  fact  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Sacred  Scip- 
tures  to  support  the  doctrine  of  superior  and  inferior 
worsliip.  We  often  read  of  prayer,  but  there  is  not  a 
syllable  about  absolute  and  relative,  supreme  and  infe- 
rior prayer.     We  are  commanded  to  pray  fervently  and 


DIVINITY  OF    CHRIST.  145 

incessantly  ;  but  never  sovereignly  or  absolutely.  We 
have  no  rules  left  us  about  raising  or  lowering  our  inten- 
tions, in  proportion  to  the  dignity  of  the  objects.  Some 
instructions  to  this  purpose  might  have  been  highly  use- 
ful ;  and  it  is  very  strange,  that,  in  a  matter  of  so  great 
importance,  no  directions  should  be  given,  either  in 
Scripture,  or,  at  least,  in  antiquity,  how  to  regulate  our 
intentions  and  meanings,  with  metaphysical  exactness  ; 
so  as  to  make  our  worship  either  high,  higher,  or  high- 
est of  all,  as  occasion  should  require. 

But  a  greater  objection  against  this  doctrine  is,  that 
the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture  runs  counter  to  it.  This 
may  be  understood,  in  part,  from  what  we  have  obser- 
ved. To  make  it  yet  plainer,  we  will  now  take  into 
consideration  such  acts  and  instances  of  worship  as  are 
laid  down  in  Scripture,  whether  under  the  old  or  new 
dispensation. 

Sacrifice  was  one  instance  of  worship  required  under 
the  law  ;  and  it  is  said,  "  He  that  sacrificeth  unto  any 
god,  save  unto  the  Lord  only,  he  shall  be  utterly  de- 
stroyed," Ex.  xxii.  20.  Now  suppose  any  person,  con- 
sidering with  himself  that  only  absolute  and  sovereign 
sacrifice  was  appropriated  to  God,  by  this  law,  should 
have  gone  and  sacrificed  to  other  gods,  and  have  been 
convicted  of  it  before  the  judges : — the  apology  he 
must  have  made  for  it  must  have  run  thus :  "  Gentle- 
men, though  I  have  sacrificed  to  other  gods,  yet,  I  hope 
you  '11  observe  that  I  did  it  not  absolutely :  I  meant  not 
any  absolute  or  supreme  sacrifice,  (which  is  all  that  the 
law  forbids,)  but  relative  and  inferior  only.  I  regulated 
my  intentions  with  all  imaginable  care,  and  my  esteem 
with  the  most  critical  exactness  :  I  considered  the  other 
gods  whom  I  sacrificed  to  as  inferior  only,  and  infinitely 
so,  reserving  all  sovereign  sacrifice  to  the  supreme  God 
of  Israel."  This,  or  the  like  apology,  must  have 
brought  off  the  criminal,  with  some  applause  for  his 
acuteness,  if  the  doctrine  of  superior  and  inferior  wor- 
ship be  true.  Unitarians  must  either  admit  this,  or  be 
13 


146  DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST. 

content  to  say  that  not  only  absolute  supreme  sacrifice, 
but  all  sacrifice  was,  by  law,  appropriated  to  God  only. 

Another  instance  of  worship  is,  making  of  vows,  re- 
ligious vows.  We  find  as  little  appearance  of  the  above 
distinction  here  as  in  the  former  case.  We  read  noth- 
ing of  sovereign  and  inferior,  absolute  and  relative  vows  ; 
that  we  should  imagine  supreme  vows  to  be  appropriate 
to  God,  inferior  permitted  to  angels  or  idols,  or  to  any 
creature. 

Swearing  is  another  instance  much  of  the  same  kind 
with  the  foregoing.  Swearing  by  God's  name  is  a  plain 
thing,  and  well  understood,  but  if  Unitarians  tell  us  of  sov- 
ereign and  inferior  swearing,  according  to  the  inward  res- 
pect or  intention  they  have,  in  proportion  to  the  dignity 
of  the  person  by  whose  name  they  swear,  it  must  sound 
perfectly  new  to  us.  All  swearing  which  comes  short 
in  its  respect,  or  falls  below  sovereign,  will,  we  are  afi-aid, 
be  little  better  than  profaneness. 

Such  being  the  case  in  respect  to  the  acts  of  reh- 
gious  worship  already  mentioned,  I  now  ask,  what  is 
there  so  peculiar  in  the  case  of  prayer  and  adoration, 
that  they  should  not  be  thought  of  the  same  kind  with 
the  other?  Why  should  not  absolute  and  relative 
prayer  and  prostration  appear  as  absurd  as  absolute  and 
relative  sacrifice,  vows,  oaths,  or  the  like  ?  They  are 
acts  and  instances  of  religious  worship  like  the  other ; 
appropriated  to  God  in  the  same  manner,  and  by  the 
same  laws,  and  upon  the  same  grounds  and  reasons. 
Unitarians  imagine  that  acts  of  religious  worship  are  to 
derive  their  signification  and  quality  from  the  intention 
and  meaning  of  the  worshippers,  whereas,  the  very 
reverse  of  it  is  the  truth.  Their  meaning  and  signifi- 
cation is  fixed  and  determined  by  God  himself;  and, 
therefore,  we  are  never  to  use  them  with  any  other 
meaning,  under  peril  of  profaneness  or  idolatry.  God 
has  not  left  us  at  liberty  to  fix  what  sense  we  please 
upon  religious  worship,  to  render  it  high  or  low,  abso- 
lute or  relative,  at  discretion,  supreme  when  offered  to 


DIVINITr    OF    CHRIST.  147 

God,  and  if  to  others,  inferior :  as  when  to  angels,  or 
saints,  or  images,  in  suitable  proportion.  No,  religion 
was  not  made  for  metaphysical  heads  only,  such  as 
might  nicely  distinguish  the  several  degrees  and  eleva- 
tions of  respect  and  honor  among  many  objects.  The 
short  and  plain  way,  which  (in  pity  to  human  infirmity, 
and  to  prevent  confusion)  it  has  pleased  God  to  take 
with  us,  is  to  make  all  religious  worship  his  own ;  and 
so  it  is  sovereign  of  course.  This  I  take  to  be  the  Scrip- 
tural as  well  as  only  reasonable  account  of  the  object 
of  worship.  We  need  not  concern  ourselves  (it  is  but 
vain  to  pretend  to  it)  about  determining  the  sense  and 
meaning  of  religious  worship.  God  himself  has  taken 
care  of  it ;  and  it  is  already  determined  to  our  hands. 
It  means,  whether  we  will  or  no,  it  means,  by  Divine 
institution  and  appointment,  the  Divinity,  the  suprema- 
cy, the  sovereignty  of  its  object.  To  misapply  those 
marks  of  dignity,  those  appropriate  ensigns  of  Divine 
majesty  ;  to  compliment  any  creature  with  them,  and 
thereby  to  make  common  what  God  has  made  proper,  is 
to  deify  the  works  of  God's  hands,  and  to  serve  the 
creature  instead  of  the  Creator,  God  blessed  for  ever. — - 
fVaterland. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  religious  principles  which 
were  held  by  the  Apostles  and  followers  of  our  Saviour, 
in  order  to  determine  whether  they  could  have  worship- 
ped him  with  any  thing  less  than  supreme  worship. 
*'  They  were  Jews  ;  and  Jews  of  an  age  in  which  their 
nation  had  long  shaken  off  its  idolatrous  propensities, 
and  which  was  distinguished  by  its  zeal  against  all  wor- 
ship, or  expressions  of  religious  trust  and  hope  being 
directed,  not  only  to  false  gods,  (to  idols,)  but  to  crea- 
tures. The  great  principle  of  the  law  was,  '  Thou 
shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  (or,  besides)  me.'  It 
was,  therefore,  commanded  by  Moses,  '  Thou  shalt  fear 
the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  shalt  thou  serve ;'  which 
words  are  quoted  by  our  Lord  in  his  temptation,  when 
solicited  to  worship  Satan,  so  as  to  prove  that  to  fear 


148  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

God  and  to  serve  him  are  expressions  which  signify 
worship,  and  that  all  other  beings  but  God  are  excluded 
from  it.  '  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and 
him  only  shalt  thou  serve.'  The  argument,  too,  in  the 
quotation,  is  not  that  Satan  had  no  right  to  receive  wor- 
ship because  he  was  an  evil  spirit ;  but  that,  whatever 
he  might  be,  or  whoever  should  make  that  claim,  God 
only  is  to  be  worshipped.  By  this,  also,  we  see  that 
Christianity  made  no  alteration  in  Judaism,  as  to  the 
article  of  doctrine,  for  our  Lord  himself  here  adopts  it 
as  his  own  principle ;  he  quotes  it  from  the  writings  of 
Moses,  and  so  transmitted  it,  on  his  own  authority,  to  his 
followers.  Accordingly,  we  find  the  Apostles  teaching 
and  practising  this  as  a  first  principle  of  their  religion. 
St.  Paul  (Rom.  i.  21 — 25)  charges  the  heathen  with 
not  glorifying  God  when  they  knew  him,  and  worship- 
ping and  serving  '  the  creature  more  than  (or,  besides) 
the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  for  ever.'  '  Wherein  the 
Apostle,'  says  Waterland,  '  plainly  intimates,  that  the 
Creator  only  is  to  be  served,  and  that  the  idolatry  of 
the  Heathens  lay  in  their  worshipping  of  the  creature. 
He  does  not  blame  them  for  giving  sovereign  or  abso^ 
lute  worship  to  creatures,  they  could  scarcely  be  so  silly 
as  to  imagine  there  could  be  more  than  one  supreme 
God  ;  but  for  giving  any  worship  to  them  at  all,  sover- 
eign or  inferior.'  Again  :  when  he  mentions  it  as  one  of 
the  crimes  of  the  Galatians,  previous  to  their  conver- 
sion to  Christianity,  that  they  '  did  service  unto  them 
which  by  nature  were  no  gods,'  he  plainly  intimates,  that 
no  one  has  a  title  to  religious  service  but  he  who  is  by 
nature  God  ;  and,  if  so,  he  himself  could  not  worship 
or  do  service  to  Christ,  unless  he  believed  him  to  pos- 
sess a  natural  and  essential  divinity. 

''  The  practice  of  the  Apostles,  too,  was  in  strict  ac- 
cordance with  this  principle.  Thus,  when  worship  was 
offered  to  St.  Peter,  by  Cornelius,  who  certainly  did  not 
take  him  to  be  God,  he  forbade  it :  so  also  Paul  and 
Barnabas  forbade  it  at  Lystra,  with  expressions  of  hor- 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  149 

ror,  when  offered  to  them.  An  eminent  instance  is  re- 
corded, also,  of  the  exclusion  of  all  creatures,  however 
exalted,  from  this  honor,  in  Rev.  xix.  10,  where  the  an- 
gel refuses  to  receive  so  much  as  the  outward  act  of 
adoration,  giving  this  rule  and  maxim  upon  it,  '  Worship 
God  ;'  intimating  thereby,  that  God  only  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped ;  that  all  acts  of  religious  worship  are  appropri- 
ated to  God  alone.  He  does  not  say,  '  Worship  God, 
and  whom  God  shall  appoint  to  be  worshipped,'  as  if  he 
had  appointed  any  besides  God ;  nor  '  Worship  God 
with  sovereign  worship,'  as  if  any  inferior  sort  of  wor- 
ship was  permitted  to  be  paid  to  creatures  ;  but  simply, 
plainly,  and  briefly,  '  Worship  God.' 

*'  From  the  known  and  avowed  religious  sentiments, 
then,  of  the  Apostles,  both  as  Jews  and  as  Christians, 
as  well  as  from  their  practice,  it  follows,  that  they  could 
not  pay  religious  worship  to  Christ,  a  fact  which  has  al- 
ready been  established,  except  they  had  considered  him 
as  a  Divine  Person,  and  themselves  as  bound,  on  that 
account,  according  to  his  own  words,  to  honor  the  Son, 
even  as  they  honored  the  Father J^ — Watson, 

Efforts  have  also  been  made  to  reduce  the  worship 
paid  to  our  Saviour  into  nothing  more  than  expressions 
of  respect  which  was  paid  to  Eastern  rulers.  But  our 
Lord  was  worshipped  during  his  incarnation,  while  he 
cautiously  avoided  giving  the  least  sanction  to  the  no- 
tion that  he  had  any  civil  pretensions,  and  that  his  ob- 
ject was  to  make  himself  king.  It  would,  therefore, 
have  been  a  marked  inconsistency  to  suffer  himself  to 
be  saluted  with  the  homage  of  prostration  proper  to  civil 
governors,  and  which,  indeed,  was  not  always  in  Judea, 
rendered  to  them.  He  did  not  receive  this  homage, 
then,  under  the  character  of  a  civil  ruler  or  sovereign ; 
and  under  what  character  could  he  receive  it  ?  Not  in 
compliance  with  the  haughty  custom  of  the  Jewish 
Rabbis,  who  exacted  great  external  reverence  from  their 
disciples,  for  he  sharply  reproved  their  haughtiness  and 
love  of  adulation  and  honor :  not  as  a  simple  teacher  of 
13* 


150  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

religion,  for  his  Apostles  might  then  have  imitated  his 
example,  since,  upon  the  Unitarian  hypothesis,  they, 
when  they  had  collected  disciples  and  founded  churches, 
had  as  clear  a  right  to  this  distinction  as  he  himself,  had 
it  only  been  one  of  appropriate  and  common  courtesy 
sanctioned  by  their  master.  But  when  do  we  read  of 
their  receiving  worship  without  spurning  it  on  the  very 
ground  that  "  they  were  men  of  like  passions"  with 
others  ?  How,  then,  is  it  to  be  accounted  for,  that  our 
Lord  never  forbade  or  discouraged  this  practice  as  to 
himself,  or  even  shunned  it  ?  In  no  other  way,  than 
that  he  was  conscious  of  his  natural  right  to  the  homage 
thus  paid ;  and  that  he  accepted  it  as  the  expression  of 
a  faith  which,  though  sometimes  wavering,  because  of 
the  obscurity  which  darkened  the  minds  of  his  follow- 
ers, and  which  even  his  own  conduct,  mysterious  as  it 
necessarily  was,  till  "he  openly  showed  himself"  after 
his  passion,  tended  to  produce,  yet  sometimes  pierced 
through  the  cloud,  and  saw  and  acknowledged,  in  the 
Word  made  flesh,  "  the  glory  as  of  the  only-begotten  of 
the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth." 

But  if  Jesus  Christ  is  God,  our  opponents  inquire  with 
much  triumph,  how  he  could  be  born  and  die  ?  how  he 
could  grow  in  wisdom  and  stature  ?  how  he  could  be 
subject  to  law?  be  tempted?  stand  in  need  of  prayer? 
how  his  soul  could  be  "  exceeding  sorrowful  even  unto 
death  ?"  be  "  forsaken  of  his  Father  ?"  purchase  the 
church  with  "  his  own  blood  ?"  have  "  a  joy  set  before 
him  ?"  be  a  mediator  between  God  and  man  ?  be  exalt- 
ed ?  have  "  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth"  given  to 
him  ?  &;c.  It  should,  however,  be  remembered  that  he 
was  also  man,  that  "  in  him  were  united  two  whole  and 
perfect  natures,  that  is  to  say,  the  Godhead  and  man- 
hood." This  being  the  fact  with  regard  to  our  Saviour, 
the  above  objections  lose  all  their  force  :  for,  as  man,  he 
could  pass  through  all  these  changes,  while  in  his  Divin© 
nature  he  remains  the  same,  the  unchangeable  God;  and 
that  this   doctrine  of   two   natures,  in  the   person  of 


DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST.  151 

Christ,  is  correct,  will  appear  evident  from  the  fact  that 
the  Scriptures  speak  of  him  as  "  the  Prince  of  life," 
who  was  "killed,"  Acts  iii.  15  ;  "  the  Lord  of  glory," 
who  was  infamously  "  crucified,''  1  Cor.  ii.  8  ;  "  the 
root  of  Jesse,"  "  and  a  rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse," 
Isa.  xi.  1,  10;  "the  Lord,"  and  the  "Son,"  the  "root 
and  the  offspring  of  Da\dd,"  Matt.  xxii.  45  ;  Rev.  xxii. 
16 ;  the  "  Lord  of  all,"  and  the  servant  of  men,  Acts 
X.  36  ;  Matt.  xx.  28  ;  "  the  Word,  which  was  God,  and 
was  made  flesh,"  John  i.  1,  14  ;  "who  was  in  the  form 
of  God,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,"  Phil,  ii, 
6,  7  ;  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Son  of  man  ;  the  fellow 
of  Jehovah  and  of  men,  Zech.  xiii.  7  ;  Heb.  ii.  9 ; 
eternal,  and  yet  beginning,  Mic.  v.  2  ;  "  having  life  in 
himself,"  John  i.  4,  and  yet  being  dependent;  "filling 
all  in  all,"  and  lying  in  a  manger,  Eph.  i.  23  ;  "  know- 
ing all  things,"  and  yet  ignorant  of  some,  John  xxi.  17  ; 
"  almighty,"  and  yet  "  crucified  through  weakness," 
Rev.  i.  8  ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  4  ;  always  "  the  same,"  and  yet 
undergoing  many  changes,  Heb.  i.  12;  "  reigning  for 
ever,"  and  yet  resigning  the  kingdom,  Isa.  ix.  7  ;  1 
Cor.  XV.  24  ;  "  equal  with  God,"  and  yet  subordinate, 
Phil.  ii.  6,  &tc.  ;  "one"  with  God,  and  yet  a  Mediator 
between  God  and  men,  John  x.  30  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  5. 
These  passages  clearly  prove  both  the  Divinity  and  hu- 
manity of  our  Saviour,  and  are  perfectly  irreconcilable 
on  any  other  hypothesis.  Unitarians  are  therefore  un- 
der the  necessity  of  admitting  the  correctness  of  this 
theory,  or  of  saying,  as  some  of  them  have  done,  that 
the  Scriptures  are  contradictory,  and  therefore  not  Di- 
vinely inspired.^  They  may  take  either  horn  of  this 
dilemma.  If  they  yield  the  point  that  Christ  was  both 
God  and  man,  they,  as  above  remarked,  give  up  the 
whole  force  of  their  objection.  If  they  say  that  the 
Bible  contradicts  itself,  we  shall  then  be  prepared  to 
meet  them,  not  as  disguised,  but  as  open  and  avowed 
infidels. 

*  See  the  extracts  from  Mr.  Parker  and  Dr.  Priestley,  on  page  6. 


152  DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

Unitarians  have  also  attempted  to  confound  the  terms 
Person  and  Essence,  and  thereby  have  endeavored  to 
make  Trinitarians  assert,  that  there  are  three  essences, 
and  consequently  three  Gods ;  but  that  one  being 
should  necessarily  include  one  person  only,  is  what 
none  can  prove  from  the  nature  of  things  ;  and  all  that 
can  be  affirmed  on  the  subject  is,  that  it  is  so  in  fact 
among  all  intelligent  creatures  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted. Among  them,  distinct  persons  are  only  seen 
in  separate  beings,  but  this  separation  of  being  is  clear- 
ly an  accident  of  personality ,  for  the  circumstance  of 
separation  forms  no  part  of  the  idea  of  personality  it- 
self, which  is  confined  to  a  capability  of  performing  per- 
sonal acts.  In  God,  the  distinct  persons  are  represent- 
ed as  having  a  common  foundation  in  one  being :  but 
this  union  also  forms  no  part  of  the  idea  of  personality, 
nor  can  be  proved  inconsistent  with  it.  The  manner  of 
the  union,  it  is  granted,  is  incomprehensible,  and  so  is 
Deity  himself,  and  every  essential  attribute  with  which 
his  nature  is  invested.  The  objection,  therefore,  found- 
ed upon  the  terms  person  and  essence  will  have  no  force 
until  Unitarians  prove  that  these  terms  are  synonimous, 
or  that  God  cannot  exist  in  three  persons  ;  which  they 
cannot  do.  For  though  each  person  be  of  the  essence, 
yet  the  three  persons  together  do  constitute  the  essence  : 
And  though  the  whole  essence  is  inseparably  connected 
with  each  of  the  persons,  both  in  willing  and  working, 
yet  it  cannot  be  said  with  any  propriety,  that  the  Fa- 
ther is  the  whole  Essence  of  the  Son,  or  the  Holy 
Ghost,  notwithstanding  they  are  distinctly  and  by  them- 
selves essentially  divine.  Thus,  it  will  appear,  that 
though  Essence  and  Person  differ  as  to  the  full  extent 
of  the  terms,  yet  they  perfectly  agree  when  they  apply 
to  the  reality  of  the  Deity.  Each  person  by  himself  is 
God,  but  not  the  Godhead  ;  and  the  Godhead  is  in  each 
person,  but  is  not  each  person.  From  this  relative  dis- 
tinction, it  follows,  that  the  Son  and  Spirit,  being  per- 
sons in  Jehovah  and  inseparable  from  the  essence,  are 


DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST,  153 

both  personally  and  essentially  Jehovah,  and  conse- 
quently, either  in  union  or  distinction,  are  the  object  of 
worship.  In  fact,  as  true  believers,  we  do  not  and  can- 
not worship  any  one  of  the  Divine  Persons  separate  or 
alone,  however  we  may  mention  each  by  themselves ; 
for  if  we  invocate  the  Son,  we  invocate  the  Divine  Es- 
sence, which  is  inseparable  from  the  Son,  and  conse- 
quently invocate  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
same  may  be  observed,  if  we  address  the  other  persons. 
By  this,  we  may  understand  what  our  Lord  implies, 
when  he  says,  "  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the 
Father  :  I  and  my  Father  are  one,"  &tc.  so  the  apostle, 
''  He  that  hath  the  Son,  hath  the  Father  also."  If  this 
doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  essence,  or  of  the  one 
essence  existing,  indivisibly  though  distinctly,  in  the 
tliree  persons,  were  rightly  stated,  there  would  seem  but 
little  room  for  the  disputes  respecting  the  proper  object"^ 
of  worship  and  the  inferiority  or  subordination  of  the 
Divine  persons. 

To  attempt,  therefore,  a  refutation  of  the  Divinity  of 
Christ,  by  saying,  "  There  are  two  very  and  eternal 
Gods,"  which  is  the  course  pursued  by  many  Unita- 
rians, is  mere  folly.  It  has  no  force  only  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  true  ;  and 
of  course  does  not  affect  us.  The  point  at  issue  lies 
between  our  opposers  and  the  Bible  !  It  says  Christ  is 
God.  They  say  he  is  not,  or  there  are  two  Gods. 
Whatever  weight  they  put  upon  this  objection,  I  am 
satisfied  of  its  fallacy,  because  it  is  placed  against  the 
Scriptures.  And  while  they  prefer  it,  however  plausi-* 
ble  it  may  appear,  they  give  sufficient  evidence  that 
they  prefer  the  wisdom  of  the  world  to  that  which  coiHk* 
eth  from  above. 


154  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 


CHAPTER  V. 

DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

Having,  in  the  two  preceding  chapters,  established 
the  proper  personahty  and  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  well  as  the  Supreme  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ,  from 
which  it  necessarily  follows  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  true,  we  now  approach,  in  a  more  direct  man- 
ner, this  great  mystery  of  our  faith,  for  the  declaration 
of  which  we  are  so  exclusively  indebted  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  not  only  is  it  incapable  of  proof  a  priori^ 
but  it  derives  no  direct  confirmatory  evidence  from  the 
existence  and  wise  and  orderly  arrangements  of  the 
works  of  God.  It  stands,  however,  on  the  unshaken 
foundation  of  his  own  word  ;  that  testimony  which  he 
has  given  of  himself  in  both  Testaments ,  and  if  we 
see  no  traces  of  it,  as  of  his  simple  being  and  operative 
perfections,  in  the  works  of  his  creative  power  and 
wisdom,  the  reason  is  that  creation,  in  itself,  could  not 
be  the  medium  of  manifesting,  or  of  illustrating  it. 
Some,  it  is  true,  have  thought  the  Trinity  of  Divine 
persons  in  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead  demonstrable  by 
natural  reason.  Poiret  and  others,  formerly,  and  Pro- 
fessor Kidd,  recently,  have  all  attempted  to  prove,  not 
that  this  doctrine  implies  a  contradiction,  but  that  it 
cannot  be  denied  without  a  contradiction  ;  and  that  it 
is  impossible  but  that  the  Divine  Nature  should  so  exist. 
The  former  endeavors  to  prove  that  neither  creation, 
nor  indeed  any  action  in  the  Deity  was  possible,  but 
from  this  tri-unity.  But  his  arguments,  were  they  ad- 
duced, would  scarcely  be  considered  satisfactory,  even 
by  those  whose  belief  in  this  doctrine  is  most  settled. 
The  latter  argues  from  notions  of  duration  and  space, 
which  themselves  have  not  hitherto  been  satisfactorily 


DOCTKINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  155 

established,  and  if  they  had,  would  yield  but  slight  as- 
sistance in  such  an  investigation.  This,  however,  may 
be  said  respecting  such  attempts,  that  they  at  least  show 
that  men  quite  as  eminent  for  strength  of  understand- 
ing and  logical  acuteness  as  any  who  have  decried  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  irrational  and  contradictory, 
find  no  such  opposition  in  it  to  the  reason  or  to  the  na- 
ture of  things,  as  the  latter  pretend  to  be  almost  self- 
evident.  The  very  opposite  conclusions  reached  by 
the  parties,  when  they  reason  the  matter  by  the  light  of 
their  own  intellect  only,  is  a  circumstance,  it  is  true, 
which  lessens  our  confidence  in  pretended  rational  dem- 
onstrations ;  but  it  gives  neither  party  a  right  to  assume 
any  thing  at  the  expense  of  the  other.  Such  failures 
ought,  indeed,  to  produce  in  us  a  proper  sense  of  the  in- 
adequacy of  human  powers  to  search  the  deep  things 
of  God ,  and  they  forcibly  exhibit  the  necessity  of  Di- 
vine teaching  in  every  thing  which  relates  to  such  sub- 
jects, and  demand  from  us  an  entire  docility  of  mind, 
where  God  himself  has  condescended  to  become  our 
instructor. 

But  as  Unitarians  are  very  clamorous  in  their  appeals 
to  the  early  fathers,  we  shall,  before  we  proceed  to  ex- 
amine the  testimony  of  Scripture,  endeavor  to  prove, 
from  the  testimony  of  "  the  fathers  of  the  first  three 
centuries,  that  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  was,  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  acknowledged 
by  the  Catholic  Church,  and  that  those  who  maintained 
a  contrary  opinion  were  considered  as  heretics  ;  and  as 
every  one  knows  that  neither  the  Divinity  of  the  Father, 
nor  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  was  ever  called  in  ques- 
tion at  any  period,  it  follows  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  in  Unity  has  been  in  substance,  in  all  its  con- 
stituent parts,  always  known  among  Christians.  In  the 
fourth  century  it  became  the  subject  of  eager  and  gen- 
eral controversy  ;  and  it  was  not  till  then  that  this  doc- 
trine was  particularly  discussed.  While  there  was  no 
denial  or  dispute,  proof  and  d^fefi^G^  were  unnecessary. 

■  H^^  ■ 


156  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

But  this  doctrine  is  positively  mentioned  as  being  admit- 
ted among  Catholic  Christians,  by  writers  who  lived 
long  before  that  age  of  controversy.  Justin  Martyr,  in 
refuting  the  charge  of  atheism  against  Christians,  be- 
cause they  did  not  believe  in  the  gods  of  the  Heathen, 
expressly  says,  '  We  worship  and  adore  the  Father  and 
the  Son  who  came  from  him  and  taught  us  these  things, 
and  the  prophetic  Spirit ;'  and  soon  after,  in  the  same 
apology,  he  imdertakes  to  show  the  reasonableness  of 
the  honor  paid  by  Christians  to  the  Father  in  the  first 
place,  to  the  Son  in  the  second,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  the  third ;  and  says,  that  their  assigning  the  second 
place  to  a  crucified  man  was,  by  unbelievers,  denomina- 
ted madness,  because  they  w^ere  ignorant  of  the  mys- 
tery, which  he  then  proceeds  to  explain.  Athenagoras, 
in  replying  to  the  same  charge  of  atheism  urged  against 
Christians,  because  they  refused  to  worship  the  false 
gods  of  the  Heathen,  says,  '  Who  would  not  wonder, 
when  he  knows  that  we,  who  call  upon  God  the  Father, 
and  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Spirit,  showing 
their  power  in  the  Unity,  and  their  distinction  in  order, 
should  be  called  atheists  ?'  Clement  of  Alexandria 
not  only  mentions  three  Divine  persons,  but  invokes 
them  as  the  one  only  God.  Praxeas,  Sabellius,  and 
other  Unitarians,  accused  the  orthodox  Churches  of 
tritheism,  which  is  of  itself  a  clear  proof  that  the  ortho- 
dox worshipped  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Tertullian,  in  writing  against  Praxeas,  main- 
tains, that  a  Trinity,  rationally  conceived,  is  consistent 
with  truth  ;  and  that  unity  irrationally  conceived  forms 
heresy.  He  had  before  said,  in  speaking  of  the  Fath- 
er, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  that  '  there  are  three  of  one 
substance,  and  of  one  condition,  and  of  one  power, 
because  there  is  one  God ;'  and  he  afterwards  adds, 
*  The  connection  of  the  Father  in  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Son  in  the  Comforter,  makes  three  united  together,  the 
one  with  the  other ;  which  three  are  one  thing,  not  one 
person  ;  as  it  is  said,  I  and  the  Father  are  one  thing, 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  157 

with  regard  to  the  unity  of  substance,  not  to  the  singu- 
larity of  number:'  and  he  also  expressly  says,  'The 
Father  is  God,  and  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  God  ;'  and  again,  '  The  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  believed  to  be  three,  constitute  one  God.' 
And  in  another  part  of  his  works  he  says,  '  There  is  a 
Trinity  of  one  Divinity,  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost.'  And  TertuUian  not  only  maintains 
these  doctrines,  but  asserts  that  they  were  prior  to  any 
heresy,  and  had,  indeed,  been  the  faith  of  Christians 
from  the  first  promulgation  of  the  gospel.  To  these 
writers  of  the  second  century,  we  may  add  Origen  and 
Cyprian  in  the  third ;  the  former  of  whom  mentions 
baptism  (alluding  to  its  appointed  form)  as  '  the  source 
and  fountain  of  graces  to  him  who  dedicates  himself  to 
the  Divinity  of  the  adorable  Trinity.'  And  the  latter, 
after  reciting  the  same  form  of  baptism,  says  that '  by  it 
Christ  delivered  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  unto  which 
mystery  or  sacrament  the  nations  were  to  be  baptized.' 
It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  quotations  upon  this  sub- 
ject ;  but  these  are  amply  sufficient  to  show  the  opinions 
of  the  early  fathers,  and  to  refute  the  assertion  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  an  invention  of  the  fourth 
century." —  Watson. 

The  decision  of  the  council  of  Nice  may  also  be  con- 
sidered as  establishing  the  position  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  was  held  by  the  first  Christian  churches, 
and  therefore  by  the  Apostles.  This  council  met  in 
the  year  325,  and  is  thus  spoken  of  by  Eusebius  Pam- 
philus,  who  was  one  of  its  members  : 

'^  The  most  distinguished  ministers  of  God  met  to- 
gether from  every  part  of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa. 
The  sacred  edifice,  as  if  enlarged  by  the  pleasure  of 
God,  inclosed  at  the  same  time  within  its  walls,  both 
Syrians  and  Cilicians,  Phenicians,  Arabians,  and  in- 
habitants of  Palestine ;  Egyptians,  Thebeans,  and 
Lybians,  with  others  arriving  from  Mesopotamia.  A 
bishop  from  Persia  was  also  present.  Nor  was  the 
14 


158  DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY. 

Scythian  absent  from  this  assembly.  Pontus,  also^ 
and  Gallatia,  Pamphylia  and  Cappadocia,  Asia  and 
Phrygia  furnished  representatives  from  their  most  able 
divines.  Thracians,  too,  Macedonians,  Achaians  and 
Epirotes,  and  those  who  resided  at  a  vast  distance  be- 
yond them,  were  convened.  That  illustrious  Spaniard, 
who  is  so  highly  spoken  of,  took  his  seat  with  the  oth- 
ers. The  prelate  of  the  imperial  city,  indeed,  was 
absent  on  account  of  his  advanced  years,  but  his  place 
was  supplied  by  presbyters.  Constantine,  alone,  of  all 
the  princes  who  ever  lived,  wove  so  brilliant  a  crown  as 
this,  joined  together  by  the  bond  of  peace,  as  a  suitable 
acknowledgment  of  gratitude  to  heaven  for  the  victories 
vouchsafed  him  over  his  enemies,  and  dedicated  it  to 
God  his  Saviour,  in  bringing  together  so  great  a  con- 
vention ;  an  image,  as  it  were,  of  the  Apostolic  assem- 
bly. For  it  is  related  that  in  the  times  of  the  Apos- 
tles religious  men  were  gathered  together  from  every 
nation  under  heaven.  Among  them  were  Parthians, 
Medes,  Elamites,  and  inhabitants  of  Mesopotamia,  Ju- 
dea  and  Cappadocia,  Pontus,  Asia,  and  Pamphyha, 
Egypt,  and  the  parts  of  Lybia,  which  is  near  Cyrene  ; 
strangers,  also,  of  Rome,  Jews  and  proselytes,  Cretes 
and  Arabians.  In  that  congregation,  however,  there 
was  this  circumstance  of  inferiority,  that  all  who  were 
collected  together  were  not  ministers  of  God,  while  the 
present  assembly  included  more  than  two  hundred  and 
fifty  bishops  ;  but  such  a  multitude  of  presbyters,  dea- 
cons and  acolothists  accompanied  them,  that  it  was  diffi- 
cult to  determine  their  number.  Among  these  holy 
ministers,  some  excelled  by  the  wisdom  and  eloquence 
of  their  discourse,  others  by  the  gravity  of  their  deport- 
ment and  patience  of  labor;  ;and  others,  again,  by 
their  humility,  and  the  gentleness  of  their  manners. 
Some  of  them  were  honored  on  account  of  their  gray 
hairs,  while  others  were  recommended  by  their 
youthful  vigor  and  activity  both  of  body  and  mind." 
Yet,  notwithstanding  the  number,  the  piety,  and  tal- 


DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY.  159 

ents  of  the  men  who  composed  this  Council,  they  unan- 
imously, with  the  exception  of  five,  signed  the  follow- 
ing creed,  so  much  despised  by  Unitarians,  because  it 
contains  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  : 

'^  We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Ma- 
ker of  all  things,  visible,  and  invisible ;  and  in  one 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  the  only  begotten 
of  the  Father,  that  is,  of  the  substance  of  the  Father ; 
God  of  God,  light  of  light,  true  God  of  true  God  ;  be- 
gotten, not  made,  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  by 
whom  all  things  were  made,  both  in  heaven  and  in 
earth  ;  who  for  us  men,  and  for  our  salvation,  descend- 
ed, was  incarnate,  and  was  made  man,  and  suffered,  and 
rose  again  the  third  day  ;  he  ascended  into  heaven,  and 
shall  come  to  judge  the  hving  and  the  dead  :  And  in 
the  Holy  Spirit.  But  the  holy  catholic  and  apostolic 
Church  of  God  anathematizes  those  who  affirm  that 
there  was  a  time  when  the  Son  was  not,  or  that  he  was 
not  before  he  was  begotten,  or  that  he  was  made  of 
things  not  existing ;  or  who  say,  that  the  Son  of  God 
was  of  any  other  substance  or  essence,  or  created,  or 
liable  to  change  or  conversion." 

"  The  remarkable  unanimity  of  the  synod  on  this 
subject,  which  is  the  only  one  examined  by  that  con- 
vention, which  excites  much  interest  at  the  present  day, 
may  be  considered,  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  of 
the  case,  as  affording  a  powerful  confirmation  of  the 
truth  of  this  important  doctrine.  Every  part  of  the 
Christian  world  was  virtually  represented  by  men,  who, 
for  their  commanding  station  and  favorable  opportuni- 
ties, must  be  supposed  to  have  been  well  acquainted 
with  what  was  understood  to  have  been  the  doctrine  of 
the  Apostles  on  this  important  article  of  our  faith.  Most 
of  them,  probably,  lived  within  two  centuries  of  the 
death  of  St.  John.  Could  the  original  doctrine  have 
been  lost  in  a  period  so  comparatively  short  ?  Could  it 
have  been  corrupted  ?  Could  it  have  been  generally 
corrupted  throughout  the  Church  ?     If  not,  the  fathers 


160  DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY. 

of  Nice  must  have  held,  in  this  respect,  the  faith  deli?- 
ered  by  the  first  preachers  of  Christianity,  and  conse-- 
quently  the  true  one.  They  could  not  have  been  igno- 
rant of  what  was  and  had  been  believed  in  their  res- 
pective countries.  The  agreement,  therefore,  on  this 
point,  of  so  many  different  nations,  as  expressed  by 
their  representatives,  nations  of  such  various  characters, 
pursuits,  manners,  customs  and  prejudices,  can  be  satis- 
factorily accounted  for  only  on  the  supposition  that  they 
had  received  their  belief  from  a  common  source,  and 
preserved  it  pure  by  tradition,  during  the  few  genera- 
tions which  had  elapsed  from  the  time  when  they  first 
received  the  gospel  from  the  Apostles  themselves,  or 
from  those  who  lived  not  long  after  the  apostolic  age. 
It  may  be  said,  that  many  of  the  members  of  the  coun- 
cil might  have  been  deterred  from  expressing  their  real 
belief,  as  some  few  of  them  undoubtedly  were,  from  the 
fear  of  exile  or  deposition.  But  they  appear  to  have 
been  almost  unanimous  on  this  subject  before  any  threats 
of  that  kind  were  held  out,  and  therefore  such  an  ap- 
prehension could  have  operated  on  a  very  small  number 
only ;  and  if  even  a  mere  majority  had  been  Arians, 
the  danger  would  obviously  have  been  on  the  other  side. 
St.  Chrysostom  remarks,  that  it  would  be  absurd  to 
charge  the  council,  composed  as  it  was,  in  a  great  meas- 
ure, of  saints  and  confessors,  either  with  ignorance  or 
fear.  Nor  does  this  reflection  seem  to  be  unfounded. 
For,  how  can  it  be  reasonably  supposed,  that  in  the 
situation  in  which  they  were  placed,  and  which  has  al- 
ready been  adverted  to,  they  could  be  in  any  doubt 
whether  our  Lord  was  Divine  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
term,  or  a  creature  only,  however  exalted  in  rank  and 
dignity  ;  or  that  such  men  would  have  disguised  their 
genuine  persuasion  from  a  fear  of  losing  their  sacerdotal 
honors,  or  of  missing  those  temporal  advantages  and 
emoluments  which  they  might  naturally  have  expected 
to  enjoy  under  the  dominion  of  a  Christian  prince  ? 
Was  it  for  them,  men  of  unblemished  integrity  and  vir- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  161 

tue,  basely  to  violate  their  consciences  for  "  a  piece  of 
bread  ?"  or  descend,  for  the  sake  of  office,  from  their 
elevated  position,  as  "  good  soldiers  of  Jesus  Christ," 
to  the  meanness  of  subterfuge  and  dissimulation  ?  Was 
it  for  men  who  were  born  and  grew  up  amidst  scenes  of 
pagan  insult,  cruelty  and  oppression,  and  many  of 
whom,  for  their  courageous  defence  of  the  truth,  had 
been  deprived  of  their  substance,  or  loaded  with  chains, 
or  confined  in  a  dungeon,  or  maimed  and  disfigured  in 
their  persons  ;  and  who  would  doubtlesss  have  accom- 
panied their  heroic  brethren  in  the  faith,  '  counting  not 
their  lives  dear  unto  them,'  to  the  scaffold  or  the  stake  ; 
or  would  have  expired  in  torments  on  the  rack,  or  been 
nailed  to  the  cross,  or  become  food  for  lions,  rather  than 
blaspheme  that  worthy  name  whereby  they  were  call- 
ed ;" — was  it  for  them  to  [stoop  to  such  moral  degrada- 
tion ?  men,  too,  some  of  whom  had  been  distinguished 
by  the  episcopal  mitre  at  a  period  when  it  was  so  far  from 
advancing  their  worldly  interest,  that  it  only  exposed 
them  more  surely  to  the  '  loss  of  all  things,'  added  to 
their  toils,  their  trials,  and  their  sufferings,  and  served 
but  to  render  them  a  more  conspicuous  mark  for  heathen 
persecution  ?"  (Boyle.)  Fear,  then,  could  have  had 
no  influence  over  these  men  when  they  signed  the  above 
creed,  which  so  clearly  embraces  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  They  therefore  signed  it  deliberately  and 
from  choice,  as  expressing  their  religious  sentiments  on 
this  important  subject.  We  must,  therefore,  admit  that 
the  Nicene  fathers  were  Trinitarians  ;  and  if  so,  this 
must  have  been  the  faith  of  the  Apostles,  unless  we 
suppose  that  the  Church,  during  this  short  period  from 
the  Apostles,  (325  years,)  had  become  universally  cor- 
rupt, which  is  far  from  the  truth  ;  for,  although  some 
had  departed  from  the  faith  and  denied  the  Lord  that 
bought  them,  yet  the  followers  of  Christ,  in  general, 
down  to  this  period,  adhere  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Sa- 
viour and  his  Apostles. 

Dr.  Mosheim,  who  is  often  appealed  to  by  our  oppo- 
14* 


162  DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY* 

iients,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  gives  decided  tes- 
timony to  the  fact  that  this  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  during  the  three  first  centu- 
ries, for  he  expressly  says,  that  "  the  Church,  indeed, 
had  frequently  decided  against  the  Sabellians  and  oth- 
ers, that  there  was  a  real  difference  between  the  Father 
and  Son,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  distinct  from 
them  both  ;  or  as  we  commonly  speak,  that  three  dis- 
tinct persons  exist  in  the  Deity  ;  but  the  mutual  relation 
of  these  persons  to  each  other,  and  the  nature  of  that 
distinction  that  subsists  between  them,  are  matters  that 
hitherto  were  neither  disputed  nor  explained."  Let  it 
be  remarked  that  the  Dr.  is  here  speaking  of  the  Church 
previous  to  the  council  of  Nice,  and  that  the  Sabellians 
were  Unitarians,  who  contended  that  there  was  but  one 
person  in  the  Godhead  ;  but  during  the  three  first  cen- 
turies the  church  had  frequently  decided  against  this;^ 
and  consequently  in  favor  of  the  Trinity,  or  that  there 
was,  as  Dr.  IMosheim  expresses  it,  "  three  distinct  per- 
sons in  the  Deity."  This  doctrine  was,  therefore,  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Christ  during  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  Martyrs  and  primitive  Christians. 

This  position  is  also  established  by  the  history  of  the 
controversy  itself  which  proves  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  ''  was  held  as  an  article  of  faith  in  the  church 
anterior  to  the  Nicene  convention  ;  if  not,  about  what 
did  Arius  find  fault  ?  And  why  did  he  remonstrate 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  without  alledging 
that  it  was  not  till  then  corrupt?  And  also  from  the 
fact  that  when  Trypho,  the  Jew,  and  Apulius,  the 
skeptic,  set  up  their  opposition  against  the  Christian  re- 
ligion on  account  of  the  folly  that  they  conceived  there 
was  in  subscribing  to  so  paradoxical  an  article  as  they 
represented  that  of  the  Trinity  to  be,  and  that  their  able 
antagonists,  Justin  Martyr  and  Origen,  did  not  deny  the 
fact,  there  can  remain  no  doubt  that  they  did  hold  it  as 
a  fundamental  article  of  their  faith. 

As  this  contL-oversy  has  not  been  much  agitated  of 


DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY.  163 

late  years  as  far  in  the  country  as  where  that  class  of 
Unitarians  who  claim  to  be  called  Christians  mostly 
prevail,  they  amuse  the  people  with  an  idea  that  the 
priests  of  the  several  denominations  who  believe  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  have  purposely  kept  them  in  ig- 
norance on  this  subject ;  intimating  that  their  silence, 
which  necessity  has  not  disturbed  on  account  of  the 
victory  this  truth  has  so  long  since  obtained  over  the 
error  that  is  opposed  to  it,  is  the  studied  effect  of  a  fear 
to  have  it  investigated ;  and  that  they  have  come  to 
tear  away  the  veil  and  expose  the  secret.  This  im- 
pression being  carried  to  the  minds  of  the  people  by  the 
cautious  method  of  these  teachers  in  communicating  it, 
naturally  associates  with  it  an  idea  that  the  world  has 
always  been  thus  imposed  on,  and  they  of  course  think 
more  favorably  of  the  cause  which  is  thus  shrewdly 
represented  as  being  oppressed  by  the  art  of  designing 
men,  than  they  would  if  they  knew  that  it  had  frequent- 
ly been  tested,  and  always  failed  under  the  most  favora- 
ble circumstances  to  succeed. 

To  expose  this  deception,  the  above  remarks  have 
been  offered,  and  we  think  they  are  sufficient  to  show 
the  candid  reader  that  so  far  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity from  having  its  origin  in  the  dark  ages  of  the  Church, 
that  it  has  been  handed  down  to  us  from  the  Saviour 
and  his  Apostles. 

2.  The  antiquity  and  universal  spread  of  this  doc- 
trine may  be  argued  in  favor  of  its  truth.  "  That  near- 
ly all  the  Pagan  nations  of  antiquity,  says  Bishop  Tom- 
line,  in  their  various  theological  systems,  acknowledged 
a  kind  of  Trinity,  has  been  fully  evinced  by  those  learn- 
ed men  who  have  made  the  Heathen  mythology  the 
subject  of  their  elaborate  inquiries.  The  almost  uni- 
versal prevalence  of  this  doctrine  in  the  Gentile  king- 
doms must  be  considered  as  a  strong  argument  in  favor 
of  its  truth.  The  doctrine  itself  bears  such  striking  in- 
ternal marks  of  a  divine  original,  and  is  so  very  unlikely 
to  have  been  the  mvention  of  mere  human  reason,  that 


164  DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY. 

there  is  no  way  of  accounting  for  the  general  adoption 
of  so  singular  a  behef,  but  by  supposing  that  it  was  re- 
vealed by  God  to  the  early  patriarchs,  and  that  it  was 
transmitted  by  them  to  their  posterity.     In  its  progress, 
indeed,  to  remote  countries,  and  to  distant  generations, 
this  belief  became  depraved  and  corrupted  in  the  high- 
est degree  ;  and  he  alone  who  brought  '  life  and  immor- 
tality to  light,'  could  restore  it  to  its  original  simplicity 
and   purity.     The   discovery   of  the   existence  of  this 
doctrine  in  the  early  ages,  among  the  nations  whose  re- 
cords have  been  the  best  preserved,  has  been  of  great 
service  to  the  cause  of  Christianity,  and  completely  re- 
futes the  assertion  of  infidels  and  skeptics,  that  the  sub- 
lime and  mysterious  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  owes  its  ori- 
gin  to   the   philosophers  of  Greece.     '  If  we  extend,' 
says  Mr.  Maurice,  '  our  eye  through  the  remote  region 
of  antiquity,  we  shall  find  this  very  doctrine,  which  the 
primitive  Christians  are  said  to  have  borrowed  from  the 
Platonic  school,  universally  and  immemorially  flourish- 
ing in  all  those   countries   where   history  and  tradition 
have  united  to  fix  those  virtuous  ancestors  of  the  human 
race,  who,  for  their  distinguished  attainments  in  piety, 
were  admitted  to  a  familiar  intercourse  with  Jehovah 
and  the  angels,  the  divine  heralds  of  his  commands.'  " 
3.  We  will  now  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  Scrip- 
ture.    The  first  argument  drawn  from  this  source  will 
be  founded  on  the  word  Elohim,  a  noun  "  of  the  plural 
number,  by  which  the  Creator  is  expressed.     This  ap- 
pears as  evidently  to  point  toward  a  plurality  of  per- 
sons in  the  divine   nature,  as  the  verb  in  the   singular, 
with  which  it  is  joined,  does  to  the  unity  of  that  nature : 
'  In  the  beginning  God  created  ;'  with  strict  attention 
to  grammatical  propriety,  the  passage  should  be  render- 
ed, *  In  the  beginning  Gods  created,'  but  our  belief  in 
the  unity  of  God  forbids  us  thus  to  translate  the  word 
Elohim.     Since,  therefore,  Elohim  is  plural,  and  no  plu- 
ral can  consist  of  less  than  two  in  number,  and  since 
creation  can  alone  be  the  work  of  Deity,  we  are  to  un- 


DOCTRINE     OP    THE    TRINITY.  165 

derstand  by  this  term  so  particularly  used  in  this  place, 
God  the  Father,  and  the  eternal  Logos,  or  Word  of 
God  ;  that  Logos  whom  St.  John,  supplying  us  with  an 
excellent  comment  upon  this  passage,  says,  was  in  the 
beginning  with  God,  and  who  also  was  God.  As  the 
Father  and  the  Son  are  expressly  pointed  out  in  the  first 
verse  of  this  chapter,  so  is  the  Third  Person  in  the  bles- 
sed Trinity  not  less  decisively  revealed  to  us  in  Gen.  i. 
2 :  '  And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of 
the  waters  :'  '  brooded  upon'  the  water,  incubavit,  as  a 
hen  broods  over  her  eggs.  Thus  we  see  the  Spirit  ex- 
erted upon  this  occasion  an  active  effectual  energy  ;  by 
tliat  energy  agitating  the  vast  abyss,  and  infusing  into  it 
a  powerful  vital  principle. 

"  Elohim  seems  to  be  the  general  appellation  by 
which  the  Triune  Godhead  is  collectively  distinguished 
in  Scripture  ;  and  in  the  concise  history  of  the  creation 
only,  the  expression,  hara  Elohim,  'the  Gods  created,' 
is  used  above  thirty  times.  The  combining  this  plural 
noun  w^itli  a  verb  in  the  singular  w^ould  not  appear  so  re- 
markable, if  Moses  had  uniformly  adhered  to  that  mode 
of  expression  ;  for  then  it  would  be  evident  that  he 
adopted  the  mode  used  by  the  Gentiles  in  speaking  of 
their  false  gods  in  the  plural  number,  but  by  joining 
with  it  a  singular  verb  or  adjective,  rectified  a  phrase 
that  might  appear  to  give  a  direct  sanction  to  the  error 
of  polytheism.  But,  in  reality,  the  reverse  is  the  fact ; 
for,  in  Deut.  xxxii.  15,  17,  and  other  places,  he  uses 
tlie  singular  number  of  this  very  noun  to  express  the 
Deity,  though  not  employed  in  the  august  work  of  cre- 
ation :  '  He  forsook  God,'  Eloah ;  '  they  sacrificed  to 
devils  not  to  God,'  Eloah.  But  farther,  Moses  himself 
uses  this  very  word  Elohim  with  verbs  and  adjectives  in 
the  plural.  Of  this  usage  Dr.  AUix  enumerates  many 
other  striking  instances  that  might  be  brought  from  the 
Pentateuch ;  and  other  inspired  writers  use  it  in  the 
same  manner  in  various  parts  of  the  Old  Testament, 
Job  xxxv.  10  ;  Joshua  xxiv.  19  ;  Psalm  cix.  1 ;  Eccle- 


166  DOCTRINE     OF    THE     TRINITY. 

siastes  xii.  3  ;  2  Samuel  vii.  23.  It  must  appear,  there- 
fore, to  every  reader  of  reflection,  exceedingly  singular, 
that  when  Moses  was  endeavoring  to  establish  a  theo- 
logical system,  of  which  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  was 
the  leading  principle,  and  in  which  it  differed  from  all 
other  systems,  he  should  make  use  of  terms  directly  im- 
plicative of  a  plurality  in  it ;  yet  so  deeply  was  the  aw- 
ful truth  under  consideration  impressed  upon  the  mind 
of  the  Hebrew  legislator,  that  this  is  constantly  done  by 
him  ;  and,  indeed,  as  AUix  has  observed,  there  is  scarce- 
ly any  method  of  speaking  from  which  a  plurality  in 
Deity  may  be  inferred,  that  is  not  used  either  by  himself 
in  the  Pentateuch,  or  by  the  other  inspired  writers  in 
various  parts  of  the  Old  Testament." 

Unitarians  have  attempted  to  evade  the  force  of  the 
argument  drawn  from  the  word  Elohim,  by  saying  that 
tliis  is  given  to  Moses,  Abraham,  and  several  other  cele- 
brated characters  among  the  Jews.  This,  however,  is 
a  mistake  ;  Dr.  Adam  Clark,  who  v/as  certainly  both  a 
competent  and  honest  Hebrew  critic,  expressly  says, 
tliat  the  word  Elohim  is  never  a  human  appellation  in 
any  instance  except  one,  and  that  is  in  these  words  of 
tlie  Saviour,  "  I  said  ye  are  Gods,"  (Elohim)  but  in  this 
case  it  is  certainly  plural,  as  well  as  in  all  others ;  and, 
therefore,  when  applied  to  God,  it  must  express  a  plu- 
rality of  persons  in  the  Divine  essence. 

4.  "  If  the  argument  above  offered  should  still  appear 
inconclusive,  the  twenty-sixth  verse  of  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis  contains  so  pointed  an  attestation  to  the 
truth  of  it,  that,  when  duly  considered,  it  must  stagger 
the  most  hardened  skeptic  ;  for  in  that  text  not  only  the 
plurality  is  unequivocally  expressed,  but  the  act  which 
is  the  peculiar  prerogative  of  Deity  is  mentioned  to- 
gether with  that  plurality,  the  one  circumstance  illustra- 
ting the  other,  and  both  being  highly  elucidatory  of  this 
doctrine  :  '  And  God  (Elohim)  said.  Let  us  make  man 
in  our  image,  after  our  likeness.'  Why  the  Deity  should 
speak  of  himself  in  the  plural  number,  unless  that  Deity 


DOCTRINE     OF    THE     TRINITY.  167 

consisted  of  more  than  one  person,  it  is  difficult  to  con- 
ceive ;  for  the  answer  given  by  modern"  Unitarians, 
*'that  this  is  only  a  figurative  mode  of  expression,  im- 
plying the  high  dignity  of  the  speaker,  and  that  it  is 
usual  for  earthly  sovereigns  to  use  this  language  by  way 
of  distinction,  is  futile,  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  highly  degrading  to  the  Supreme  Majesty  to 
suppose  he  would  take  his  model  of  speaking  and 
thinking  from  man,  though  it  is  highly  consistent  with 
tlie  vanity  of  man  to  arrogate  to  himself,  as  doubtless 
was  the  case  in  the  licentiousness  of  succeeding  ages, 
the  style  and  imagined  conceptions  of  Deity  ;  and  it 
will  be  remembered,  that  these  solemn  words  were  spo- 
ken before  the  creation  of  any  of  those  mortals,  whose 
false  notions  of  greatness  and  sublimity  the  Almighty  is 
thus  impiously  supposed  to  adopt.  In  truth,  there  does 
not  seem  to  be  any  real  dignity  in  an  expression,  which, 
when  used  by  a  human  sovereign  in  relation  to  himself, 
approaches  very  near  to  absurdity.  The  genuine  fact, 
however,  appears  to  be  this.  When  the  tyrants  of  the 
east  first  began  to  assume  divine  honors,  they  assumed 
likewise  the  majestic  language  appropriated  to,  and 
highly  becoming,  the  Deity,  but  totally  inapplicable  to 
man.  The  error  was  propagated  from  age  to  age  through 
a  long  succession  of  despots,  and  at  length  Judaic  apos- 
tacy  arrived  at  such  a  pitch  of  profane  absurdity,  as  to 
affirm  that  very  phraseology  to  be  borrowed  from  man 
which  was  the  original  and  peculiar  language  of  the 
Divinity.  It  was,  indeed,  remarkably  pertinent  when 
applied  to  Deity  ;  for,  in  a  succeeding  chapter,  we  have 
more  decisive  authority  for  Vvhat  is  thus  asserted,  where 
the  Lord  God  himself  says,  '  Behold,  the  man  is  be- 
come as  one  of  us;'  a  very  singular  expression,  which 
some  Jewish  commentators,  with  equal  effi^ontery,  con- 
tend was  spoken  by  the  Deity  to  the  council  of  angels, 
that,  according  to  their  assertions,  attended  him  at  the 
creation.  From  the  name  of  the  Lord  God  being  used 
in  so  emphatical  a  manner,  it  evidently  appears  to  be  ad- 


168  DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY. 

dressed  to  those  sacred  persons  to  whom  it  was  before 
said,  '  Let  us  make  man  ;'  for  would  indeed  the  omni- 
potent Jehovah,  presiding  in  a  less  dignified  council,  use 
words  that  have  such  an  evident  tendency  to  place  the 
Deity  on  a  level  with  created  beings  r" 

5.  "  The  solemn  form  of  bendiction,  in  which  the 
Jewish  High  Priests  were  commanded  to  bless  the  chil- 
dren  of  Israel,"  may  be  considered  as  a  strong  argument 
in  favor  of  the  Trinity,  ^'  and  singularly  answers  to  the 
form  of  benediction  so  general  in  the  close  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Epistles,  and  which  so  appropriately  closes  the 
solemn  services  of  Christian  worship.  It  is  given  in 
Numbers  vi.  24 — 27. 

Jehovah  bless  thee  and  keep  thee  : 

Jehovah  make  his  face  to  shine  upon  thee,  and  be  gracious  unto  thee : 

Jehovah  lift  his  countenance  upon  thee,  and  give  thee  peace. 

"  If  the  three  members  of  this  form  of  benediction 
be  attentively  considered,  they  will  be  found  to  agree 
respectively  to  the  three  persons  taken  in  the  usual 
order  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  Father  is  the  author  of  blessing  and  pi'eservation, 
illumination  and  grace  are  from  the  Son,  illumination 
and  peace  from  the  Spirit,  the  teacher  of  truth  and  the 
Comforter." —  Watson, 

"  The  first  member  of  the  formula  expresses  the  be- 
nevolent '  love  of  God,'  the  father  of  Mercies,  and 
fountain  of  all  good  ;  the  second  well  comports  with  the 
redeeming  and  reconciling  '  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;'  and  the  last  is  appropriate  to  the  purity,  conso- 
lation and  joy,  which  are  received  from  the  '  commu- 
nion of  the  Holy  Spirit." — Smith. 

"  The  connection  of  certain  specific  blessings  in  this 
form  of  benediction  with  the  Jehovah  mentioned  three 
times  distinctly,  and  those  which  are  represented  as 
flowing  from  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  in  the  apostol- 
ic form,  would  be  a  singular  coincidence,  if  it  even  stood 
alone ;  but  the  light  of  the  same  eminent  truth  breaks 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  169 

forth   from  other  partings  of  the  clouds  of  the   early 
morning  of  revelation. 

"  The  inner  part  of  the  Jewish  Sanctuary  was  called 
the  Holy  of  Hohes,that  is  the  holy  place  of  the  Holy  ones; 
and  the  number  of  these  is  indicated  and  limited  to  three 
in  the  celebrated  vision  of  Isaiah,  and  that  with  great 
explicitness.  The  scene  of  that  vision  is  the  holy  place 
of  the  Temple,  and  lies,  therefore,  in  the  very  abode 
and  residence  of  the  Holy  ones,  here  celebrated  by  the 
seraphs,  who  veiled  their  faces  before  them.  And  one 
cried  unto  another,  and  said,  '  Hohj^  Holy,  Holy  is  the 
Loid  of  Hosts.'  This  passage,  if  it  stood  alone,  might 
be  eluded  by  saying  that  this  act  of  Divine  adoration, 
here  mentioned,  is  merely  emphatic,  or  in  the  Hebrew 
mode  of  expressing  a  superlative,  though  that  is  as- 
sumed and  by  no  means  proved.  It  is,  however,  wor- 
thy of  serious  notice,  that  this  distinct  trine  act  of  ado- 
ration, which  has  been  so  often  supposed  to  mark  a  plu- 
rality of  persons  as  the  objects  of  it,  is  answered  by  a 
voice  from  that  excellent  glory  which  overwhelmed  the 
mind  of  the  Prophet  when  he  was  favored  with  the  vis- 
ion, responding  in  the  same  language  of  plurality  in 
which  the  doxology  of  the  seraphs  is  expressed.  'Also 
I  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  saying.  Whom  shall  I 
send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  ?'  But  this  is  not  the  only  ev- 
idence that  in  this  passage  the  Holy  ones  who  were  ad- 
dressed each  by  his  appropriate  and  equal  distinction  of 
holy,  were  the  three  Divine  subsistencies  in  the  God- 
head. The  being  addressed  is  the  '  Lord  of  Hosts.' 
This  all  acknowledge  to  include  the  Father ;  but  the 
Evangelist  John,  xii.  41,  in  manifest  reference  to  this 
transaction,  observes,  '  These  things  said  Esaias,  when 
he  saw  his  (Christ's)  glory,  and  spake  of  him.'  In  this 
vision,  therefore,  we  have  the  Son  also,  whose  glory  on 
this  occasion  the  Prophet  is  said  to  have  beheld.  Acts 
xxviii.  25,  determines  that  there  was  also  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Holy  Ghost.  '  Well  spake  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  Esaias  the  Prophet  unto  our  fathers,  saying, 
15 


170  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

Go  unto  this  people  and  say,  Hearing  ye  shall  hear  ana 
not  understand,  and  seeing  ye  shall  see  and  not  per- 
ceive,' &c.  These  words,  quoted  from  Isaiah,  the 
Apostle  Paul  declares  to  have  been  spoken  by  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost,  and  Isaiah  declares  them  to  have  been  spoken 
on  this  very  occasion  by  the  '  Lord  of  Hosts.'  '  And 
he  said,  Go  and  tell  this  people,  Hear  ye  indeed  and 
understand  not,  and  see  ye  indeed  but  perceive 
not,'  &ic. 

*'  Now  let  all  these  circumstances  be  placed  together 
—THE  PLACE,  the  holy  place  of  the  Holy  one  ;  the 
repetition  of  the  homage,  three  times,  Holy,  Holy, 
Holy — the  one  Jehovah  of  hosts,  to  whom  it  was  ad- 
dressed— the  plural  pronoun  used  by  this  one  Jehovah, 
us  ;  the  declaration  of  an  Evangelist,  that  on  this  oc- 
casion Isaiah  saw  the  glory  of  Christ  ;  the  declaration 
of  St.  Paul,  that  the  Lord  of  Hosts  who  spoke  on  that 
occasion  was  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  and  the  conclusion  will 
not  appear  to  be  without  most  powerful  authority,  both 
circumstantial  and  declaratory,  that  the  adoration,  Holy, 
Holy,  Holy,  referred  to  the  Divine  Three,  in  the  one 
essence  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts.  According  to  the  book 
of  Revelation,  where  '  the  Lamb  '  is  so  constantly  rep- 
resented as  sitting  upon  the  Divine  throne,  and  where 
he  by  name  is  associated  with  the  Father,  as  an  object 
of  the  equal  homage  and  praise  of  saints  and  angels ; 
this  scene  from  Isaiah  is  transferred  into  the  4th  chapter, 
and  the  '  living  creatures,'  the  seraphim  of  the  Pro- 
phet, are  heard  in  the  same  strain,  and  with  the  same 
trine  repetition,  saying,  Hohj,  Holy,  Holy,  Lord  God 
Almighty,  which  luas,  and  is,  and  is  to  coineJ'' 

That  this  repetition  of  holy  three  times  expressed 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  was  believed  and  taught  by 
the  Jewish  Rabbins  before  Christ,  and  were  it  not  for 
the  hatred  of  modern  Jews  to  our  Saviour,  they  un- 
doubtedly would  admit  the  same  fact ;  for  it  is  not  an  idle 
repetition  or  ascription  of  holiness,  but  a  celebration  of 
tlie  proper  holiness   and  Divinity  of  the  three  persons 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  171 

in  the  Lord  of  Hosts.  Nor,  as  St.  Jerom  justly  ob- 
serves, is  that  frequent  declaration,  ''  I  am  the  God  of 
Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob," 
without  its  meaning ;  but  the  threefold  repetition  inti- 
mates the  Trinity  ;  and  the  reiteration  of  the  same  name 
(Elohim)  denotes  the  Unity  of  substance. 

Isaiah  xlviii.  16,  also  makes  this  threefold  distinction 
and  limitation.  "And  now  the  Lord  God  and  his  Spirit 
has  sent  me."  Here  are  three  distinct  persons  engaged 
in  one  work  and  declaration.  The  person  speaking  by 
tlie  Prophet  is  the  person  sent,  and  styles  himself,  just 
before.  The  First  and  the  Last.  In  a  preceding  chap- 
ter, this  First  and  Last  is  called  Jehovah  the  Redeemer 
and  Lord  of  Hosts,  (Jehovah  Sabaoth,)  which  last 
name  is  applicable,  on  no  account,  but  to  the  supreme 
God.  But  in  the  book  of  Revelation,  at  several  times, 
we  find  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  assuming  this  very  name, 
and  saying,  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  The  First  and  the 
Last.  Christ,  therefore,  being  the  First  and  the  Last, 
tire  Sent  One  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Spirit,  and  Je- 
hovah Sabaoth  or  Lord  of  Hosts,  is  in  himself  true  and 
very  God,  and  also  a  person  of  co-equal  dignity  with  the 
other  persons  in  the  Godhead.  Nor  is  the  grammatical 
construction  of  the  text  to  be  unnoticed.  It  is  not  said 
tlie  Lord  God  and  his  Spirit  have  sent,  in  the  plural 
number,  but  hath  sent,  in  the  singular ;  thereby  intima- 
ting the  unity  of  the  Divine  nature  in  the  plurality  of 
persons.  The  mission  or  sending  of  Christ  by  no 
means  degrades  the  honor  of  his  Divinity :  "  Even  a 
superior  may  be  sent  by  an  inferior,  if  the  superior 
chooses  to  go."  How,  then,  can  mission  be  incompat- 
ible with  equality  ?  especially  since  Christ  voluntarily 
covenanted  to  come  down  in  the  behalf  of  his  people  ; 
and  may  be  said  to  have  been  sent  by  the  Father  and 
the  Spirit,  because  they  also  voluntarily  covenanted  that 
he  should  come. 

6.  The  form  of  baptism  next  presents  itself  as  de- 
monstrative testimony  in  favor  of  the  Trinity.     "  '  Go 


172  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  Matt, 
xviii.  19.  The  gospel  is  every  where  in  Scripture  rep- 
resented as  a  covenant  or  conditional  offer  of  eternal 
salvation  from  God  to  man  ;  and  baptism  was  the  ap- 
pointed ordinance  by  which  men  were  to  be  admitted  into 
that  covenant,  by  which  that  offer  w  as  made  and  accept- 
ed. This  covenant  being  to  be  made  with  God  him- 
self, the  ordinance,  of  course,  must  be  performed  in  his 
name ;  but  Christ  directed  that  it  should  be  performed 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  and  therefore  we  conclude  that  God  is 
the  same  as  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Since  baptism  is  to  be  performed  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  the  Son,  an  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  must  be  all 
three  persons ;  and  since  no  superiority  or  difference 
whatever  is  mentioned  in  this  solemn  form  of  baptism^ 
we  conclude  that  these  three  persons  are  all  of  one  sub- 
stance, power,  and  eternity.  Are  we  to  be  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  is  it  possible  that  the  Father  should  be  self- 
existent,  eternal,  the  Lord  God  Omnipotent ;  and  that 
the  Son,  in  whose  name  we  are  equally  baptized, 
should  be  a  mere  man,  born  of  a  woman,  and  subject  to 
all  the  frailties  and  imperfections  of  human  nature?  or, 
is  it  possible  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  whose  name  also 
we  are  equally  baptized,  should  be  a  bare  energy  or  op- 
eration, a  quality  or  power,  Avithout  even  personal  ex- 
istence ?  Our  feelings,  as  well  as  our  reason,  revolt 
from  the  idea  of  such  disparity. 

"  This  argument  will  derive  great  strength  from  the 
practice  of  the  early  ages,  and  from  the  observations 
which  we  meet  with  in  several  of  the  ancient  fathers 
relative  to  it.  We  learn  from  Ambrose,  that  persons  at 
the  time  of  their  baptism  declared  their  belief  in  the 
three  persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  and  that  they  were 
dipped  in  the  water  three  times.  In  his  treatise  upon 
the  Sacraments,  he  says,  '  Thou  wast  asked  at  thy  bap- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  173 

tlsm,  Dost  thou  believe  in  the  Father  Almighty  ?  and 
thou  didst  reply,  I  believe,  and  thou  wast  dipped  ;  and 
a  second  time  thou  wast  asked.  Dost  thou  believe  in  Je- 
sus Christ  the  Lord  ?  thou  didst  answer  again,  I  believe, 
and  thou  wast  dipped  ;  a  third  time  the  question  was 
repeated,  Dost  thou  belive  in  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  and  the 
answer  was,  I  believe,  then  thou  was  dipped  a  third 
time.'  It  is  to  be  noticed,  that  the  belief,  here  ex- 
pressed separately,  in  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity, 
is  precisely  the  same  in  all.  TertuUian,  Basil,  and 
Jerom,  all  mention  this  practice  of  trine  immersion  as 
ancient ;  and  Jerom  says,  "  We  are  thrice  dipped  in  the 
warter,  that  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity  may  appear  to 
be  but  one.  We  are  not  baptized  in  the  names  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  but  in  one  name,  which 
is  God's  ;  and  therefore,  though  we  be  thrice  put  under 
water  to  represent  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  yet  it  is 
reputed  but  one  baptism.'  Thus  the  mysterious  union 
of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  one 
God,  was,  in  the  opinion  of  the  purer  ages  of  the 
Christian  Church,  clearly  expressed  in  this  form  of 
baptism.  By  it  the  primitive  Christians  understood 
tlie  Father's  gracious  acceptance  of  the  atonement 
offered  by  the  Messiah  ;  the  peculiar  protection  of  the 
Son,  our  great  High  Priest  and  Intercessor ;  and  the 
readiness  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  sanctify,  to  assist,  and 
to  comfort  all  the  obedient  followers  of  Christ,  confirm- 
ed by  the  visible  gift  of  tongues,  of  prophecy,  and  di- 
vers other  gifts  to  the  first  disciples.  And  as  their 
great  Master's  instructions  evidently  distinguished  these 
persons  from  each  other,  without  any  difference  in  their 
authority  or  power,  all  standing  forth  as  equally  dispen- 
sing the  benefits  of  Christianity,  as  equally  the  objects 
of  the  faith  required  in  converts  upon  admission  into 
the  Church,  they  clearly  understood  that  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  were  likewise  equally  the 
objects  of  their  grateful  worship  ;  this  fully  appears  from 
15* 


174  DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY. 

their  prayers,  doxologies,  hymns,  and  creeds,  which  are 
still  extant." 

7.  The  doxology  at  the  conclusion  of  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  may  be  considered  as 
proof  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  "  The 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  love  of  God, 
and  the  fellowship  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  be  with  you.' 
The  manner  in  which  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are 
here  mentioned,  implies  that  they  are  persons,  for  none 
but  persons  can  confer  grace  or  fellowship  ;  and  these 
three  great  blessings  of  grace,  love,  and  fellowship, 
being  respectively  prayed  for  by  the  inspired  Apos- 
tle from  Jesus  Christ,  God  the  Father,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  without  any  intimation  of  disparity,  we  conclude 
that  these  three  persons  are  equal  and  Divine.  This  sol- 
emn benediction  may  therefore  be  considered  as  another 
proof  of  the  Trinity,  since  it  acknowledges  the  Divinity 
of  Jesus  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

8.  This  doctrine  is  most  clearly  taught  in  "  the  fol- 
lowing salutation  or  benediction  in  the  beginning  of  the 
Revelation  of  St.  John  :  '  Grace  and  peace  from  Him 
which  is,  and  which  was,  and  which  is  to  come ;  and 
from  the  seven  spirits  which  are  before  his  throne,  and 
from  Jesus  Christ.'  Here  the  Father  is  described  by  a 
periphrasis  taken  from  his  attribute  of  eternity  ;  and 
'  the  seven  spirits  '  is  a  mystical  expression  for  the  Holy 
Ghost,  used  upon  this  occasion  either  because  the  salu- 
tation is  addressed  to  seven  Churches,  every  one  of 
which  had  partaken  of  the  Spirit,  or  because  seven  was 
a  sacred  number  among  the  Jews,  denoting  both  variety 
and  perfection,  and  in  this  case  alluding  to  the  various 
gifts,  administrations,  and  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Since  grace  and  peace  are  prayed  for  from  these  three 
persons  jointly  and  without  discrimination,  we  infer  an 
equality  in  tlieir  power  to  dispense  these  blessings  ;  and 
we  farther  conclude  that  these  three  persons  together 
constitute  the  Supreme  Being,  who  is  alone  the  object 
of  prayer,  and  is  alone  the  Giver  of  every  good  and  of 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  175 

every  perfe,ct  gift.  It  might  be  right  to  remark,  that  the 
seven  spirits  cannot  mean  angels,  since  prayers  are  nev- 
er in  Scripture  addressed  to  angels,  nor  are  blessings 
ever  pronounced  in  their  name.  It  is  unnecessary  to 
quote  any  of  the  numerous  passages  in  which  the  Fath- 
er is  singly  called  God,  as  some  of  them  must  be  recol- 
lected by  every  one,  and  the  Divinity  of  the  Father  is 
not  called  in  question  by  any  sect  of  Christians."  (  Wat- 
son.) As  it  has  been  clearly  shown  from  the  plainest  and 
most  unequivocal  Scripture  testimony  that  Christ  is  God, 
and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God,  it  must  necessarily 
follow,  since  there  is  but  one  God,  that  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost  are  this  one  God. 

We  therefore  see  that  the  Scriptures  inform  us  that 
there  are  three  distinct  persons,  styled  Father,  Son  and 
Spirit,  who  have  distinct  offices  and  energies  in  the  sal- 
vation of  man  ;  and  that  each  of  these  three  do  claim 
the  power  and  name  of  the  one  Jehovah  ;  it  is  obvious, 
that  they  are  not  one  in  the  same  respect  as  they  are 
tliree,  but  that  there  is  a  real  distinction  in  their  insep- 
arable union.  One  they  must  be  essentially,  for  there  is 
but  one  God :  Three  they  must  also  be  hypostatically 
or  personally,  or  there  is  neither  Father,  Son,  nor  Holy 
Ghost,  and  of  course  the  Scriptures  are  false.  The 
conclusion,  therefore,  is  plain  and  clear  that  these  three 
persons  are  one  Godhead,  and  that  the  one  Godhead  (if 
it  may  be  said)  is  the  common  substratum,  of  the  three 
persons,  in  which  they  mutually  and  inseparably  co- 
exist, "  without  any  difference  or  inequality."  To  ex- 
press this  intercommunity  of  the  Divine  persons,  the 
plural  names,  ascribed  to  the  Godhead  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  appear  to  have  been  revealed,  and  not  for  the 
sake  of  dignity,  as  some  have  imagined ;  because  God 
can  receive  no  honor  from  mere  sounds,  but  only  from 
what  they  signify  ;  and  he  has  given  us  not  the  least 
hint  that  he  has  used  the  plural  number  for  any  such  pur- 
pose. And  if  the  Godhead  be  one  only  person,  with 
what  propriety  is  the  plural  number  Elohim  so  often 


176  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

used,  when  its  own  singular  Eloah  would  in  that  case 
be  so  much  more  appropriate  ?  Besides,  it  is  a  ques- 
tion upon  his  tRith,  that  he  should  call  himself  We  and 
Us,  instead  of  I  and  Me,  as  he  frequently  does,  if  he 
were  only  one  person  or  subsistence  ;  and  it  would  be 
representing  God  as  complimenting  himself,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  his  veracity,  in  the  hollow  language  of  earthly 
courts  and  princes. 

To  render  this  important  point  still  more  undeniable, 
it  may  not  be  improper  to  produce  some  proofs  from  the 
Scripture,  in  addition  to  those  already  offered,  which 
may  evince,  that  what  is  said  of  the  Father  is  said  of 
the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  without  reserve  or  limitation, 
and  that,  therefore,  they  are  one  in  essence  though  three 
in  person. 

God  alone,  mediately  or  immediately  can  raise  the 
dead. 

But  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead  and  quickeneth 
them.  John  v.  21.  So  doth  the  Son  whom  he  will. 
Ibid.  And  the  Spirit  raised  and  quickened  even  Christ 
himself  from  the  dead.  1  Pet.  iii.  18.  See  also  Rom. 
viii.  1 1 .  Therefore  each  of  these  three  must  be  God  i 
but  there  is  but  one  God,  therefore  these  three  are  that 
ONE  God. 

In  Col.  ii.  2,  the  Apostle  speaks  of  the  mystery  of 
God,  and  of  the  Father,  and  of  Christ.  Now,  if  the 
God  and  the  Father  in  this  place  are  one  and  the  same 
person,  it  will  follow,  upon  the  same  ground,  that  God, 
and  the  Father,  and  Christ,  are  all  one  and  the  same 
person  ;  for  the  same  copulatives  unite  the  one  and  the 
other.  The  Apostle,  likewise,  could  not  have  called 
that  a  mystery  (to  acknowledge  which,  the  Collosians 
were  to  increase  in  faith,)  which  would  only  imply  that 
these  three  names  meant  one  and  the  same  thing ;  for 
this  would  have  been  playing  upon  terms,  which  is  a 
sort  of  folly  not  to  be  found  in  God's  word.  But  if  he 
meant  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity,  and  that  the  Father, 
and  Christ  as  to  his  Divinity,  with  another  person  term- 


DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY.  177 

ed  God,  who,  from  other  Scriptures  we  learn,  must  be 
God  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  three  persons  in  one  God- 
head, then  he  might  justly  call  it  a  mystery,  because  it 
is  both  a  Divine  revelation  and  a  matter  of  faith  to  the 
acknowledgment  of  which  it  would  be  the  riches  of  the 
full  assurance  of  understanding  to  obtain. 

In  1  Jolm  V.  7,  it  is  most  expressly  declared  that 
"  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father^ 
the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost :  and  these  three  are 
one."  This  passage  so  clearly  asserts  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  that  Unitarians,  in  order  to  evade  its  force, 
have  been  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  denying  its  au- 
thenticity :  as  may  be  seen  by  referring  to  Mr.  IVIil lard's 
True  Messiah,  where,  although  he  styles  himself  a  Bi- 
ble Christian,  he  flatly  denies  that  this  passage  is  the 
word  of  God,  and  looks  upon  it  as  an  interpolation,  and 
in  this  he  is  followed  by  Unitarians  generally.  But  this 
is  not  the  only  text  which  is  thus  looked  upon  by  these 
enemies  of  the  doctrine  for  which  we  are  now  contend- 
ing ;  several  others  share  the  same  fate,  while  the  trans- 
lation of  a  large  number  of  texts  are  called  in  question. 
But  is  it  not  rather  singular  that  all  the  texts  that  are 
not  true,  or  that  are  improperly  translated,  to  which 
Unitarians  object,  are  such  as  are  strongly  in  favor  of 
the  Trinity  ? 

But,  that  the  above  text  from  1  John  is  a  part  of  the 
sacred  volume,  is  evident  from  several  considerations : 
1.  There  must  be  a  flagrant  chasm  in  the  sense,  if  this 
be  removed.  It  is  so  necessary  to  the  Apostle's  argu- 
ment, that  the  argument  is  not  complete  without  it. 
And  it  is  abundantly  more  likely,  that  these  remarka- 
ble words  should  be  left  out  and  obliterated  in  copies 
made,  or  kept  by  the  ancient  heretics,  than  that  they 
should  have  been  inserted  by  the  orthodox,  who  have 
authorities  enough  beside  for  the  doctrine  expressed  in 
them. 

2.  Though  some  have  given  up  this  passage  as  doubt- 
ful, yet  a  great  majority  of  those  who  are  competent  to 


178  DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY. 

investigate  the  subject,  are  in  favor  of  its  truth.  Among 
these  may  be  found  Bengelius,  who,  as  Mr.  Wesley 
says,  was  the  most  pious,  the  most  judicious,  and  the 
most  laborious  of  all  modern  commentators  on  the  New 
Testament.  He,  as  well  as  Mr.  Wesley,  believed  this 
text  to  be  genuine,  for  the  following  reasons: 

*'  1 .  That  though  it  is  wanting  in  many  copies,  yet  it  is 
found  in  more;  and  those  copies  of  the  greatest  authority. 

2.  That  is  cited  by  a  whole  train  of  ancient  writers, 
from  the  time  of  St.  John  to  that  of  Constantiae. 
This  argument  is  conclusive ;  for  they  could  not  have 
cited  it,  had  if  not  then  been  in  the   sacred  canon. 

3.  That  we  can  easily  account  for  its  being,  after  that 
time,  wanting  in  many  copies,  when  we  remember  that 
Constantine's  successor  was  a  zealous  Arian,  who  used 
every  means  to  promote  his  bad  cause,  to  spread  Arian- 
ism  throughout  the  empire ;  in  particular,  the  erasing 
tliis  text  out  of  as  many  copies  as  fell  into  his  hands. 
And  he  so  far  prevailed,  that  the  age  in  which  he  lived 
is  commonly  styled  Seculum  Arianum,  the  Arian  age ; 
tliere  being  then  only  one  eminent  man,  who  opposed 
him  at  the  peril  of  his  life.  So  that  it  was  a  proverb, 
Athanasius  contra  mundum :  Athanasius  against  the 
world."  The  text  under  consideration  is  therefore 
genuine,  and  a  part  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures ;  and  as 
such  it  contains  an  unanswerable  argument  in  favor  of 
tlie  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;  for  it  expressly  declares 
that,  "There  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost:  and  these 
three  are  one."   1  John  v.  7. 

"  It  has  now  been  shown,  that  while  the  Unity  of 
God  is  to  be  considered  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the 
Scriptures,  laid  down  with  the  utmost  solemnity,  and 
guarded  with  the  utmost  care,  by  precepts,  by  threat- 
enings,  by  promises,  by  tremendous  punishments  of 
polytheism  and  idolatry  among  the  Jews,  the  very 
names  of  God,  as  given  in  the  revelation  made  of  him- 
self, have  plural  forms  and  are  connected  with  plural 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  179 

modes  of  speech ;  that  other  indications  of  pluraHty 
are  given  in  various  parts  of  holy  writ ;  and  that  this 
plurahty  is  restricted  to  three.  On  those  texts,  how- 
ever, which  in  their  terms  denote  a  phirahty  and  a 
trinity,  the  proof  does  not  wholly  or  chiefly  rest."  It 
has  been  shown  that  there  are  two  distinct  persons 
''  associated  with  God  in  his  perfections  and  incom- 
municable glories,  and  as  performing  works  of  unequiv- 
ocal divine  majesty  and  infinite  power,  and  thus  together 
manifesting  that  tri-unity  of  the  Godhead  which  the 
true  Church  has  in  all  ages  adored  and  magnified. 
This  is  the  great  proof  upon  which  the  doctrine  rests. 
The  first  of  these  two  persons  is  the  Son,  the  second 
the  Spirit.  Of  the  former,  it"  has  been  shown,  "  that 
the  titles  of  Jehovah,  Lord,  God,  King,  King  of  Israel, 
Redeemer,  Saviour,  and  other  names  of  God,  are  as- 
cribed to  him, —  that  he  is  invested  with  the  attributes  of 
eternity,  omnipotence,  ubiquity,  infinite  wisdom,  holi- 
ness, goodness,  fee, — that  he  was  the  Leader,  the 
visible  King,  and  the  object  of  the  worship  of  the 
Jews, — that  he  forms  the  great  subject  of  prophecy, 
and  is  spoken  of  in  the  predictions  of  the  prophets  in 
language,  which  if  applied  to  men  or  to  angels,  would 
by  the  Jews  have  been  considered  not  as  sacred  but 
idolatrous,  and  which,  therefore,  except  that  it  agreed 
with  their  ancient  faith,  would  totally  have  destroyed 
the  credit  of  those  writings, — that  he  is  eminently 
known  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New,  as 
the  Son  of  God,  an  appellative  which  is  sufficiently 
proved  to  have  been  considered  as  implying  an  assump- 
tion of  divinity  by  the  circumstance  that,  for  asserting 
it,  our  Lord  was  condemned  to  die  as  a  blasphemer  by 
the  Jewish  Sanhedrim, — that  he  became  incarnate  in 
our  nature, — wrought  miracles  by  his  own  original  pow- 
er, and  not,  as  his  servants,  in  the  name  of  another, — 
that  he  authoritatively  forgave  sin, — that  for  the  sake 
of  his  sacrifice,  sin  is  forgiven  to  the  end  of  the  world, 
and  for  the  sake  of  that  alone, — that  he  rose  from  the 


180  DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY. 

dead  to  seal  all  these  pretensions  to  divinity, — that  he 
is  seated  upon  the  throne  of  the  universe,  all  power 
being  given  to  him  in  heaven  and  in  earth, — that  his 
inspired  Apostles  exhibit  him  as  the  Creator  of  all 
things  visible  and  invisible ;  as  the  true  God  and  the 
eternal  life;  as  the  King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible, 
the  only  wise  God  and  our  Saviour, — that  they  offer  to 
him  the  highest  worship, — that  they  trust  in  him,  and 
command  all  others  to  trust  in  him  for  eternal  life, — that 
he  is  the  head  over  all  things, — that  angels  worship  him 
and  render  him  service, — that  he  will  raise  the  dead  at 
the  last  day, — -judge  the  secrets  of  men's  hearts,  and 
finally  determine  the  everlasting  state  of  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked. 

'•'  This  is  the  outline  of  Scriptural  testimony  as  to 
the  Son.  As  to  the  divine  character  of  the  Spirit,  it 
is  equally  explicit.  He  too  is  called  Jehovah  ;  Jehovah 
of  Hosts  ;  God.  Eternity,  omnipotence,  ubiquity,  in- 
finite wisdom,  and  other  attributes  of  Deity,  are  ascribed 
to  him.  He  is  introduced  as  an  agent,  in  the  work  of 
the  creation,  and  to  him  is  ascribed  the  conservation  of 
all  living  beings.  He  is  the  source  of  the  inspiration 
of  Prophets  and  Apostles  ;  the  object  of  worship  ;  the 
efficient  agent  in  illuminating,  comforting,  and  sanctify- 
ing the  souls  of  men.  He  makes  intercession  for  the 
saints  ;  quickens  the  dead,  and,  finally,  he  is  associated 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  in  the  form  of  baptism 
into  the  one  name  of  God,  and  in  the  apostolic  form  of 
benediction,  is,  equally  with  them,  the  source  and  foun- 
tain of  grace  and  blessedness.  These  decisive  points 
have  been  established  by  the  express  declarations  of 
various  passages,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament. 
The  argument,  therefore,  is,  that  as  on  the  one  hand 
the  doctrine  of  Scripture  is,  that  there  is  but  one  God  ; 
and,  on  the  other,  that  throughout  both  Testaments, 
three  persons  are,  in  unequivocal  language,  and  by  un- 
equivocal circumstances,  declared  to  be  divine ;  the 
only  conclusion  which  can  harmonize  these  otherwise 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  181 

opposite,  contradictory,  and  most  misleading  proposi- 
tions, and  declarations,  is,  that  the  Three  Persons 
ARE  ONE  God." 

Having  now,  as  we  consider,  shown  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  based  upon  the  unshaken  autliority  of 
the  word  of  God,  we  shall  now  pass  to  answer  some  of 
the  objections  which  are  urged  against  it.  The  first 
and  most  common  objection  is,  that  this  doctrine  is 
mysterious  and  incomprehensible.  To  this  Mr.  Wes- 
ley very  conclusively  replies. 

"  Here  is  a  twofold  mistake:  1.  We  do  not  require 
you  to  believe  any  mystery  in  this ;  whereas  you  sup- 
pose the  contrary.  But,  2.  You  do  already  believe 
many  things  which  you  cannot  comprehend. 

*'  To  begin  with  the  latter :  You  do  already  believe 
many  things  which  you  cannot  comprehend.  For  you 
believe  there  is  a  sun  over  your  head.  But  whether 
he  stands  still  in  the  midst  of  his  system,  or  not  only 
revolves  on  his  own  axis,  but  ^rejolceth  as  a  giant  to 
run  his  course  ;'  you  cannot  comprehend  either  one  or 
the  other :  how  he  moves,  or  how  he  rests.  By  what 
power,  wdiat  natural,  mechanical  power,  is  he  upheld 
in  the  fluid  ether  ?  You  cannot  deny  the  fact :  yet  you 
cannot  account  for  it,  so  as  to  satisfy  any  rational  in- 
quirer. You  may.  Indeed,  give  us  the  hypothesis  of 
Ptolemy,  Tycho  Brahe,  Copernicus,  and  twenty  more. 
I  have  read  them  over  and  over :  I  am  sick  of  them  ;  I 
care  not  three  straws  for  them  all. 

'  Each  new  solution  but  once  more  affords 
New  change  of  terms,  and  scaffolding  of  words : 
In  other  garb  my  question  I  receive, 
And  take  my  doubt  the  very  same  I  gave.' 

Still  I  insist,  the  fact  you  believe,  you  cannot  deny ; 
but  the  manner  you  cannot  comprehend. 

"  You  believe   there  Is  such   a   thing  as  light,  whe- 
ther flowing  from  the  sun,  or  any  other  luminous  body ; 
but  you  cannot  comprehend  either  Its  nature,  or  the 
manner  wherein  it  flows.    How  does  it  move  from  Jupi- 
16 


182  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY* 

ter  to  the  earth  in  eight  minutes  ;  two  hundred  thousand 
miles  in  a  moment?  How  do  the  rays  of  the  candle, 
brought  into  the  room,  instantly  disperse  into  every  cor- 
ner? Again,  here  are  three  candles,  yet  there  is  but 
one  light.  Explain  this,  and  I  will  explain  the  three- 
one  God. 

"  You  believe  there  is  such  a  thing  as  air.  It 
both  covers  you  as  a  garment,  and, 

'  Wide  interfused, 
Embraces  round  this  florid  earth.' 

But  can  you  comprehend  how  ?  Can  you  give  me  a 
satisfactory  account  of  its  nature,  or  the  cause  of  its 
properties  ?  Think  only  of  one,  its  elasticity  :  can  you 
account  for  this  ?  It  may  be  owing  to  electric  fire  at- 
tached to  each  particle  of  it :  it  may  not ;  and  neither 
you  nor  I  can  tell.  But  if  we  will  not  breathe  it  till 
we  can  comprehend  it  our  life  is  very  near  its  period. 

"  You  believe  there  is  such  a  thing  as  earth. 
Here  you  fix  your  foot  upon  it :  you  are  supported  by 
it.  But  do  you  comprehend  what  it  is  that  supports 
the  earth  ?  "Oh,  an  Elephant ;"  says  a  Malabarian 
philosopher,  "and  a  bull  supports  him."  But  what 
supports  the  bull  ?  The  Indian  and  the  Briton  are 
equally  at  a  loss  for  an  answer.  We  know  it  is  God 
that  "spreadeth  the  north  over  the  empty  space,  and 
hangeth  the  earth  upon  nothing."  This  is  the  fact. 
But  how  ?  Who  can  account  for  this  ?  Perhaps  an- 
gehc,  but  not  human  creatures. 

"  I  know  what  is  plausibly  said  concerning  the  pow- 
ers of  projection  and  attraction.  But  spin  as  fine  as 
we  can,  matter  of  fact  sweeps  away  our  cobweb  hypo- 
thesis. Connect  the  force  of  projection  and  attraction 
how  you  can,  they  will  never  produce  a  circular  mo- 
tion. The  moment  the  projected  steel  comes  within 
the  attraction  of  the  magnet,  it  does  not  form  a  curve, 
but  drops  down. 

"  You  believe  you  have  a  soul  connected  with 
this  house  of  clay.     But  can  you  comprehend  how  ? 


DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY.  183 

What  are  the  tics  that  unite  the  heavenly  flame  with  the 
earthly  clod?  You  understand  just  nothing  of  the 
matter.     So  it  is ;  but  how,  none  can  tell. 

"  You  surely  believe  you  have  a  hodyy  together 
with  your  soul,  and  that  each  is  dependant  on  the  other. 
Run  only  a  thorn  into  your  hand  ;  immediately  pain  is 
felt  in  your  soul.  On  the  other  side,  is  shame  felt  in 
your  soul  ?  Instantly  a  blush  overspreads  your  cheek. 
Does  the  soul  feel  fear  or  violent  anger  ?  Presently  the 
body  trembles.  These  also  are  facts  which  you  cannot 
deny ;  nor  can  you  account  for  them. 

*'  I  bring  out  but  one  instance  more :  at  the  com- 
mand of  your  soul,  your  hand  is  lifted  up.  But  who  is 
able  to  account  for  this  ?  For  the  connection  between 
the  act  of  the  mind,  and  the  outward  actions  ?  Nay, 
who  can  account  for  muscular  motion  at  all ;  in  any  in- 
stance of  it  whatever?  When  one  of  the  most  ingenious 
physicians  in  England  had  finished  his  lecture  upon  that 
head,  he  added,  'Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  told  you  all 
tlie  discoveries  of  our  enlightened  age ;  and  now,  if  you 
understand  one  jot  of  the  matter,  you  understand  more 
than  I  do.' 

"  The  short  of  the  matter  is  this :  those  who  will  not 
believe  any  thing  but  what  they  can  comprehend,  must 
not  believe  that  there  is  a  sun  in  the  firmament ;  that 
there  is  light  shining  around  them;  that  there  is  air,  though 
it  encompasses  them  on  every  side  ;  that  there  is  any 
earth,  though  they  stand  upon  it.  They  must  not  believe 
that  they  have  a  soul ;  no,  nor  that  they  have  a  body. 

"But,  secondly,  as  strange  as  it  may  seem,  in  re- 
quiring you  to  believe,  that  'there  are  three  that  bear 
record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  and  these  three  are  one  ;'  you  are  not  required 
to  believe  any  mystery.  Nay,  that  great  and  good  man, 
Dr.  Peter  Browne,  some  time  Bishop  of  Cork,  has 
proved  at  large,  that  the  Bible  does  not  require  you  to 
believe  any  mystery  at  all.  The  Bible  barely  requires 
you  to  believe  such  facts,  not  the  manner  of  them. 


184  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY. 

Now  the  mystery  does  not  lie  in  the  fact^  but  altogether 
in  the  manner. 

"  For  instance :  'God  said,  let  there  be  light :  and 
there  was  light.'  I  believe  it :  I  believe  the  plain  fact. 
There  is  no  mystery  at  all  in  this.  The  mystery  lies 
in  the  manner  of  it.  But  of  this  I  believe  nothing  at 
all ;  nor  does  God  require  it  of  me. 

"  Again  :  '  The  Word  was  made  flesh.'  I  believe 
this  fact  also.  There  is  no  mystery  in  it ;  but  as  to  the 
manner,  how  he  was  made  flesh,  wherein  the  mystery 
lies  I  know  nothing  about  it ;  I  believe  nothing  about 
it :  it  is  no  more  the  object  of  my  faith,  than  it  is  of  my 
understanding. 

"  To  apply  this  to  the  case  before  us :  '  There 
are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven ;  and  these  three 
are  one.'  I  believe  this  fact  also,  (if  I  may  use  the 
expression,)  that  God  is  three  and  one.  But  the  man- 
ner,  how,  I  do  not  comprehend ;  and  I  do  not  believe 
it.  Now  in  this,  in  the  manner,  lies  the  mystery ; 
and  so  it  may ;  I  have  no  concern  with  it :  it  is  no 
object  of  my  faith  :  I  believe  just  so  much  as  God 
has  revealed,  and  no  more.  But  this,  the  manner,  he 
has  not  revealed ;  therefore,  I  believe  nothing  about  it. 
But  would  it  not  be  absurd  in  me  to  deny  the  fact,  be- 
cause I  do  not  understand  the  manner  ?  That  is,  to 
reject  what  God  has  revealed,  because  I  do  not  com- 
prehend what  he  has  not  revealed, 

''  This  is  a  point  much  to  be  observed.  There 
are  many  things  "which  eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear 
heard,  neither  hath  it  entered  into  the  heart  of  man  to 
conceive.'  Part  of  these  God  hath  ^revealed  to  us  by 
his  Spirit:' — 'Revealed ;'  that  is,  unveiled,  uncovered: 
that  part  he  requires  us  to  beheve.  Part  of  them  he 
has  not  revealed  :  that  we  need  not,  and  indeed,  cannot 
believe :  it  is  far  above,  out  of  our  sight. 

"  Now  where  is  the  wisdom  of  rejecting  what  is  re- 
vealed, because  we  do  not  understand  what  is  not  re- 
vealed ?     Of  denying  the  fact,  which  God  has  unveiled 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY.  185 

because  we  cannot  see  the  manner,  which  is  veiled  still  ? 

"  Especially  when  we  consider  that  what  God 
has  been  pleased  to  reveal  upon  this  head,  is  far  from 
being  a  point  of  indifference ;  is  a  truth  of  the  last  im- 
portance. It  enters  into  the  very  heart  of  Christianity  : 
it  lies  at  the  root  of  all  vital  religion. 

"  Unless  these  three  are  one,  how  can  ^all  men 
honor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father?' 
*I  know  not  what  to  do,'  says  Socinus,  in  a  letter  to 
his  friend,  'with  my  untoward  followers  :  they  will  not 
worship  Jesus  Christ.  I  tell  them,  it  is  written,  'Let 
all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him.'  They  answer, 
'However  that  be,  if  he  is  not  God,  we  dare  not  wor- 
ship him.'  For  '  it  is  written,  thou  shalt  worship  the 
Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve.'  " 

It  is  objected  that  this  doctrine  is  contradictory. 
This  objection  is  founded  upon  the  supposition  that 
being  and  person  are  the  same ;  and  upon  this  begged 
supposition  it  is  argued  that  it  is  a  contradiction  to  say 
that  three  persons  can  exist  in  the  Godhead.  But,  be- 
fore this  objection  will  have  any  force  upon  the  minds 
of  reflecting  persons,  L^nitarians  will  have  to  prove  that 
person  and  being  are  the  same,  and  that  God  cannot 
exist  in  three  persons.  This  they  have  as  yet  failed  of 
doing.  While  it  has  been  demonstrated  from  the  sacred 
Scriptures  that  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  hea- 
ven, the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and 
tliat  these  three  are  one.  We  are,  therefore,  not  to  un- 
derstand by  the  word  persons,  when  applied  to  the 
Godhead,  some  separate  existences  of  a  different  nature, 
but  united  persons  in  the  same  nature.  The  persons  in 
Jehovah  are  co-equal  in  all  his  perfections  and  attri- 
butes ;  but,  with  regard  to  the  redemption  of  man,  there 
is  a  gradation,  or  succession,  in  their  respective  opera- 
tions. In  these  operations,  they  personally  act,  yet 
unitedly  concur.  The  Son,  for  instance,  redeemed  by 
his  incarnation  and  death :  But  the  Father  and  Spirit 
were  in  Christ,  co-existent  at  the  same  time.  The 
16* 


1S6  DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY. 

Spirit  also  is  the  Comforter  sent  from  the  Father  by- 
Christ  ;  and  yet  Christ,  by  union  of  nature  with  him, 
is  always  present  with  his  people,  in  whom  that  Spirit 
dwells  with  himself,  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Thus, 
God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  himself; 
thus  Christ  is  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  him ; 
thus  God  dwelleth  in  his  people,  and  they  in  God,  be- 
cause of  the  Spirit,  which  (as  one  with  himself)  he  hath 
given  them.  Hence,  these  divine  persons  are  not  mere- 
ly of  like  essence,  but  of  the  same  essence;  not  separate 
existences,  but  one  co-equal  and  co-eternal  existence. 
They  are  distinguished  from  each  other  in  manifesta- 
tion, or  person,  but  not  in  nature,  substance,  divinity, 
power,  or  glory.  Viewed  in  this  light,  all  appearance 
of  contradiction  disappears,  and  the  above  objection 
looses  all  its  force.  Besides,  it  should  be  remembered 
that  there  are  facts  which  appear  to  be  contradictory, 
when  compared  to  other  subjects,  which  in  themselves 
are  perfectly  consistent. 

"In  the  course  of  the  blood,  which  runs  upwards  as 
well  as  downwards,  through  the  human  system,  we  wit- 
ness a  fact  which  is  contrary  to  the  general  laws  of 
nature,  but  consistent  in  itself.  It  would  be  a  contra- 
diction to  say  that  a  man  can  go  ten  miles  as  soon  as 
one  ;  but  it  would  not  in  speaking  of  thought,  which 
can  ascend  to  a  star  as  soon  as  to  the  top  of  a  spire,  or 
light  upon  Hindoston  as  soon  as  upon  the  Hudson, 
And  it  would  be  such  also,  for  any  one  to  say  I  am  in 
the  house  and  the  house  in  me,  but  it  would  not  be, 
were  he  speaking  of  iron  and  fire  ;  for  the  iron  may  be 
in  the  fire  and  the  fire  in  the  iron  ;  nor  yet  would  it  be 
when  speaking  of  God  and  christians,  for  the  Bible 
says,  "They  that  dwell  in  love  dwell  in  God  and  God 
in  them."  If  natural  things,  when  compared  together, 
may  appear  to  be  contradictory,  and  yet  not  be  really 
so,  how  obvious  is  it  that  the  reputed  contradiction,  that 
it  is  said  consists  in  comparing  the  Trinity  with  corpo^ 
real  substances,  is  visionary  and  false. 


DOCTRINE     OF    THE    TRINITY.  187 

"Oar  Opponents  intimate  that  the  contradiction  con- 
sists in  our  saying  that  three  times  one  are  one.  This 
is  a  false  representation  of  our  sentiments.  Our  doc- 
trine requires  of  us  only  to  maintain  that,  three,  or  any 
other  number  more  than  one,  may  exist  in  one. 

"  Of  the  possibility  of  this,  we  have  examples  in  very 
ordinary  things.  In  the  study  of  letters  it  appears  that 
marks  make  letters  and  letters  syllables,  words,  &tc. 
Instance  the  letter  H  which  is  constituted  of  two  strait 
marks  connected  by  a  hyphen.  These  threes  marks 
make  one  letter  ;  also  the  English  spelling  of  the  word 
God,  which  depends  on  three  letters  for  its  existence, 
tliough  it  is  but  one  word.  These  remarks  are  not 
made  to  convey  an  idea  that  these  things  represent  tlie 
nature  of  the  Deity,  for,  as  I  have  said,  1  think  it  ex- 
tremely preposterous  to  attempt  a  representation  of  his 
nature,  by  any  thing  in  the  circle  of  the  universe.  He 
has  told  us  in  his  word  what  he  is,  and  it  is  our  duty  to 
believe  hhn  :  but  they  are  made  merely  to  show  that 
THREE  may  exist  in  one,  and  our  language  of  "  three 
PERSONS  in  ONE  GoD,"  is  not  so  inconsistent  as  our  op- 
posers  represent  it  to  be. 

"  Should  it  be  said,  that,  if  the  three  persons  consti- 
tute but  one  God,  it  would  be  improper  to  apply  the 
word  God  to  either  of  them  separately,  I  would  re- 
mark, that  in  the  scriptures,  the  word  is  applied  to 
them,  and  what  God  has  said  we  cannot  justly  alter; 
"but  it  is  impossible  to  use  it  in  reference  to  one  without 
viewing  it  in  relation  to  the  others,  who  are  as  really 
God  as  the  one  to  whom  we  directly  apply  it,  as  the 
miion  of  persons,  if  it  exist  at  all,  has  a  permanent  ex- 
istence, and  cannot  be  dissolved  without  destroying  the 
very  existence  of  Deity." — Luclcey. 

Unitarians  have  also  objected  to  this  doctrine  because 
the  terms  which  are  now  used  to  express  it,  such  as 
Trinity  and  person,  are  not  found  in  the  Scriptures.  If 
this  proceeded  from  a  real  regard  to  what  the  Scriptures 
revealed,  it  would  deserve  the  more  attention  ;  but  when 


188  DOCTRINE    OP    THE    TRINITY. 

the  objection  is  raised  merely  for  cavillation,  as  without 
breach  of  charity,  it  may  be  affirmed  has  often  been  the 
case,  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  if  men  will  abide  only 
by  terms  of  Scripture,  it  will  be  absolutely  necessary 
for  them  to  use  the  Scripture  only  in  the  two  languages 
of  Hebrew  and  Greek,  in  which  they  are  written.  For 
if  there  be  any  force  in  such  an  argument,  it  lies  against 
every  translation  in  the  world,  because  these  alter  the 
terms,  and  sometimes  impose  a  sense  upon  them  which 
not  only  is  contrary  to  the  sense  which  other  men  may 
affix,  but  in  some  instances  wide  enough  from  the  ori- 
ginal. In  such  a  case,  there  would  be  no  allowable 
divinity  but  what  might  appear  in  Greek  and  Hebrew, 
to  the  great  edification,  no  doubt,  of  the  common  peo- 
ple, who  happen  to  have  souls  as  well  as  rabbles  and 
philosophers,  and  who  in  general  are  at  least  as  desir- 
ous of  their  salvation.  The  truth  is,  the  terms  used  in 
tliis  and  other  cases  would  not  offend,  if  the  things 
which  the  terms  signify  were  not  disagreeable  to  those 
who  make  the  above  objection.  We  know,  as  well  as 
tliese  objectors,  that  the  words  trinity,  incarnation,  per- 
son, essence,  and  such  like,  are  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Bible  ;  but  we  also  know  that  the  truths  which  these 
words  relate  to  are  not  only  to  be  found  there,  but  are 
tlie  very  sum  and  substance  of  it.  If  these  terms  con- 
vey the  notion  of  these  truths,  they  answer  the  use  of 
all  terms,  which  is  to  communicate  the  knowledge  of 
things.  And  as  to  the  terms  themselves,  they  were 
first  employed  in  opposition  to  the  various  heretics  by 
tlie  fathers  of  the  Church,  for  a  clearer  and  more  full 
expression  of  their  doctrines,  and  have  been  very  prop- 
erly retained  to  this  day. 


ORIGINAL    STATE    OF    MAN.  189 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE    ORIGINAL    STA'^E    OF    MAN. 

Having,  in  the  preceding  chapters,  confined  ourselves 
mostly  to  the  all  important  subject  of  the  Trinity,  we 
now  pass  from  that  to  another,  in  which  we  are  all  in  like 
manner  deeply  interested,  viz  :  the  Character  and  Con- 
dition of  Man.  In  the  present  chapter,  however,  we 
shall  confine  ourselves  to  a  consideration  of  his  charac- 
ter in  his  primeval  state,  in  which  it  will  be  our  object 
to  show  that  he  was  created  holy ;  a  point  which  is  de- 
nied by  many  Unitarians. 

1.  "Man  was  the  effect  of  a  holy  cause.  Godcre- 
ted  man  ;  and  as  man  was  passive,  and  not  active,  in 
his  own  creation,  he  could  have  possessed  no  nature, 
powers,  nor  even  tendencies  of  powers,  which  he  did 
not  receive  from  the  plastic  hand  of  his  Creator.  God 
miparted  to  man  all  that  he  possessed  wdien  he  first  awoke 
to  conscious  being,  even  the  first  breath  he  drew  ;  hence 
if  man  contained  in  his  nature  any  moral  evil,  God 
must  have  been  its  author.  Man's  body,  which  was 
formed  of  the  earth,  must  have  been  a  lifeless  and  irra- 
tional form  of  matter ;  and  could  not  have  possessed 
moral  quality,  before  it  was  animated  by  a  rational 
soul ;  all,  therefore,  that  man  possessed  in  his  first  exist- 
ence that  was  moral  was  imparted  to  him  when  God 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  consti- 
tuted him  a  living  soul ;  therefore,  if  man  was  morally 
corrupt,  or  contained  in  his  nature  any  propensity  to 
evil,  it  must  have  been  infused  by  Jehovah's  breath  1 
Now  as  God  is  holy,  nothing  but  holiness  could  have 
proceeded  from  him ;  man,  therefore,  must  have  been 
holy  in  his  first  existence,  as  he  came  from  the  hands  of 
his  Divine  Author. 


190  ORIGINAL     STATE    OF    MAN. 

2,  '' '  God  created  man  in  his  own  image.'  Gen.  i. 
27.  By  the  image  of  God,  in  this  text,  we  understand 
the  moral  hkeness  of  God,  consisting  in  righteousness 
and  true  hohness.  No  other  consistent  explanation  can 
be  given  of  the  subject.  It  would  be  absurd  to  say  that 
tlie  image  of  God  consists  in  bodily  form,  for  if  form  be 
applied  to  the  Deity,  such  form  must  be  bounded  by 
geometrical  limits  ;  which  is  opposed  to  infinity  and  om- 
nipresence, perfections  which  are  essential  to  the  Su- 
preme Being.  Nor  can  it  be  consistently  said,  that  the 
image  of  God  wherein  man  was  created,  consisted  in 
his  having  authority  over  the  other  creatures,  which 
God  created,  as  his  vicegerent  on  earth,  for  this  was 
only  a  circumstance  in  his  being,  and  not  an  image  in 
which  he  was  made.  Gen.  i.  26 :  '  God  said  let  us 
make  man  in  our  own  image,  and  let  him  have  domin- 
ion,' &tc.  Here  man's  creation  in  the  image  of  God, 
and  his  having  dominion,  are  marked  as  two  distinct  cir- 
cumstances ;  the  one  refers  to  his  creation,  the  other  to 
the  design  of  his  creation,  or  to  the  circumstances  in 
wdiich  he  was  placed  after  he  was  created.  Man  was 
created  in  the  image  of  God,  but  he  did  not  possess 
dominion  until  after  he  was  created  ;  therefore,  the  im- 
age of  God  in  which  he  was  created  could  not  have  con- 
sisted in  his  having  authority  over  this  lower  world,  as 
God's  vicegerent,  because  the  image  existed  before  he 
possessed  the  authority :  he  was  created  in  the  image, 
but  the  authority  was  given  him  after  he  was  created. 
It  must  a})pear  equally  absurd  to  contend,  as  some  have, 
tliat  the  image  of  God  in  which  man  was  created  consist- 
ed exclusively  in  the  immortality  of  his  soul.  There  is 
no  evidence  that  God's  immortality  consists  in  his  image 
any  more  than  his  justice,  holiness,  or  any  other  perfec- 
tion of  his  nature.  Immortality  is  one  of  the  Divine 
perfections,  and  if  one  of  the  perfections  of  God  be 
embraced  in  the  image  which  he  stamped  upon  his  ra- 
tional offspring,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  every 
communicable  perfection  of  the  Divine  nature  must  be 


ORIGINAL     STATE     OF     MAN.  191 

embraced  to  render  the  image  complete ;  wherefore  we 
conclude,  that  as  man  was  created  in  the  Divine  image, 
he  received  from  the  plastic  hand  that  formed  him,  the 
stamp  of  every  communicable  perfection  of  the  Divine 
nature  ;  nor  is  holiness  the  least  prominent  among  these 
perfections,  as  God  has  revealed  himself  in  the  Bible. 
But  this  view  of  the  subject  does  not  depend  upon  ab- 
stract speculations  upon  the  perfections  of  God,  for  it  is 
based  on  the  declarations  of  his  word.  Eph.  iv.  24  : 
*  And  that  ye  put  on  the  new  man  which,  after  God,  is 
created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness.'  By  the  new 
man  which  we  are  here  exhorted  to  put  on,  we  under- 
stand the  true  Christian  character.  This,  the  text  in- 
forms us,  is  created  after  Gpdji.  e.,  after  the  hkenessor 
imag;e  of  God,  and  this  is  '  in  ricrhteousness  and  true 
holiness.'  The  image  of  God,  then,  consists  in  right- 
eousness and  true  holiness  ;  and  as  man  was  created  in 
this  image,  he  must  have  been  holy ;  not  merely  free 
from  unholiness,  but  postively  holy  ;  for  he  shone  in  the 
Divine  image,  which  consists  in  righteousness  and  true 
holiness. 

3.  "  We  infer  man's  primitive  holiness  from  the  seal 
of  the  Divine  approbation  which  was  set  upon  him  by 
his  Maker.  Gen.  i.  31.  '  And  God  saw  everything 
that  he  had  made,  and  behold  it  was  veiy  goodJ  As 
this  was  spoken  of  all  the  works  of  God,  its  meaning 
must  be,  that  every  thing  was  very  good  of  its  kind  ; 
the  world  was  a  good  world,  and  the  man  that  was  cre- 
ated to  people  it  was  a  good  man.  Now  as  man  was 
a  rational  being,  a  moral  agent,  and  destined  to  lead  the 
career  of  this  vast  world,  when  God  pronounced  hmi 
good,  it  must  have  been  with  reference  to  him,  such  as 
he  was,  a  moral  being  ;  he  must,  therefore,  have  been 
good  in  a  moral  sense.  This  clearly  proves  that  man 
was  not  only  free  from  all  moral  evil,  but  that  he  was 
positively  good,  or  possessed  real  moral  virtue.  If,  as 
some  now  assert,  all  moral  good  and  moral  evil  consist 
in  voluntary  action,  man  being  neither  holy  nor  unholy 


192  ORIGINAL    STATE    OF    MAN. 

until  he  puts  forth  his  vohtions,  the  text  under  considera- 
tion, which  asserts  that  he  was  very  good,  cannot  be 
true  ;  for  in  such  case,  it  would  be  as  correct  to  assert 
that  he  was  very  bad,  as  it  would  to  pronounce  him 
good.  It  must  be  perfectly  plain  that  to  assert  that  man 
was  very  good,  because  he  was  free  from  all  moral  evil, 
would  be  no  more  true  than  it  would  be  to  declare 
that  he  was  very  bad  because  he  possessed  no  moral 
holiness. 

4.  "  One  quotation  from  the  pen  of  inspiration  shall 
close  the  subject  of  man's  primitive  holiness.  Eccl.  vii. 
29:  'Lo  this  only  have  I  found,  that  God  hath  made 
man  upright,  but  they  sought  out  many  inventions/ 
That  this  text  relates  to  man's  moral  rectitude,  and  not 
to  the  erect  posture  of  his  body,  appears  from  two  con- 
siderations. 

"  TJiis  is  the  sense  in  which  the  word  upright  is  uni- 
formly employed  in  the  Scriptures.  Ps.  vii.  10:  'My 
defence  is  in  God,  who  saveth  the  upright  in  heart.' 
Prov.  xi.  9 :  '  The  righteousness  of  the  upriglit  shall 
deliver  him.'  See,  also,  Ps.  xi.  7  ;  xviii.  23,  25  ;  xix. 
13  ;  xxxvii.  37  ;  Prov.  xi.  20  ;  xii.  6.  The  above,  to 
which  many  more  references  might  be  added,  are  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  the  term  upright  is  uniformly  used  to 
signify  moral  rectitude. 

"  In  the  text  under  consideration  the  inspired  writer 
represents  his  discovery  of  the  fact  that  God  made  man 
upright,  to  be  the  fruit  of  labored  investigation,  which 
could  not  be  the  case  if  he  alluded  to  the  upright  pos- 
ture of  his  body.  It  would  reflect  no  great  honor  on 
the  intellect  of  the  inspired  penman  to  understand  him 
as  saying,  that  he  had  numbered  a  thousand  persons, 
one  by  one,  examining  each,  to  learn  that  God  had  cre- 
ated man  to  stand  erect  in  opposition  to  the  quadruped 
race.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  God  made  man  upright  in 
a  moral  sense,  and  if  so,  he  must  have  been  free  from 
moral  evil  on  one  hand,  and  possessed  moral  virtue  on 
the  other." — Lee. 


FALL     OF    MAN,  193 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE    FALL    OF    MAN. 

As  Unitarians  generally  deny  the  fall  of  man,  it  will 
^36  our  object  in  this  chapter  to  establish  this  important 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  system  ;  and^  in  the  first  placcv, 
in  support  of  this  doctrine,  we  urge  the  Mosaic  account 
of  this  event,  which  is,  ''  that  a  garden  having  been 
planted  by  the  Creator,  for  the  use  of  man,  he  was 
placed  in  it,  '  to  dress  it  and  to  keep  it ;'  that  in  this 
garden  two  trees  were  specially  distinguished,  one  as 
'  the  tree  of  hfe,'  the  other  as  '  the  tree  of  the  know- 
ledge of  good  and  evil ;'  that  from  eating  of  the  latter, 
Adam  was  restrained  by  positive  interdict,  and  by  the 
penalty,  '  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  sure- 
ly die  ;'  that  the  serpent,  who  was  more  subtle  than  any 
beast  of  the  field,  tempted  the  woman  to  eat,  by  deny- 
ing that  death  would  be  the  consequence,  and  by  as- 
suring her  that  her  eyes  and  her  husband's  eyes  '  would 
be  opened,'  and  that  they  would  '  be  as  gods,  knowing 
good  and  evil  ;'  that  the  woman  took  of  the  fruit,  gave 
it  to  her  husband  who  also  ate  ;  that  for  this  act  of  dis- 
obedience, they  were  expelled  from  the  garden,  made 
subject  to  death,  and  laid  under  other  maledictions. 

"  That  this  history  should  be  the  subject  of  much 
criticism  "  by  Unitarians,  is  not  a  matter  of  surprise  ;  for 
"  taken  in  its  natural  and  obvious  sense,  along  with  the 
comments  of  the  subsequent  Scriptures,  it  teaches  the 
doctrines  of  the  existence  of  an  evil,  tempting,  invisi- 
ble spirit,  going  about  seeking  whom  he  may  deceive 
and  devour ;  of  the  introduction  of  a  state  of  moral 
corruptness  into  human  nature,  which  has  been  transmit- 
ted to  all  men  ;  and  of  a  vicarious  atonement  for  sin," 
to  all  of  which  Unitarians  stand  opposed ;  they  there- 
17 


194  FALL    OF    MAN. 

fore  endeavor  to  evade  the  argument  founded  upon  this 
history  in  favor  of  the  fall  of  man,  by  resolving  the  part 
now  under  consideration  into  an  allegory,  or  an  instruc- 
tive fable  ;  but  ''  no  writer  of  true  history  would  mix 
plain  matter  of  fact  with  allegory  in  one  continued  nar- 
rative, without  any  intimation  of  a  transition  from  one 
to  the  other.  If,  therefore,  any  part  of  this  narrative 
be  matter  of  fact,  no  part  is  allegorical.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  any  part  be  allegorical,  no  part  is  naked  mat- 
ter of  fact ;  and  the  consequence  of  this  will  be,  that 
every  thing  in  every  part  of  the  whole  narrative  must 
be  allegorical.  If  the  formation  of  the  woman  out  of 
the  man  be  allegory,  the  woman  must  be  an  allegorical 
woman.  The  man  therefore  must  be  an  allegorical  man  ; 
for  of  such  a  man  only  the  allegorical  woman  will  be  a 
meet  companion.  If  the  man  is  allegorical,  his  Paradise 
must  be  an  allegorical  garden  ;  the  trees  that  grew  in  it, 
allegorical  trees  ;  the  rivers  that  watered  it,  allegorical 
rivers  ;  and  thus  we  may  ascend  to  the  very  beginning 
of  creation  ;  and  conclude,  at  last,  that  the  heavens  are 
allegorical  heavens,  and  the  earth  an  allegorical  earth. 
Thus  the  whole  history  of  the  creation  will  be  an  alle- 
gory, of  which  the  real  subject  is  not  disclosed  ;  and  in 
this  absurdity,  the  scheme  of  allegorizing  ends." — 
Horsley. 

"  But  that  the  account  of  Moses  is  to  be  taken  as  a 
matter  of  real  history,  and  according  to  its  literal  import, 
is  established  by  two  considerations,  against  which  as 
being  facts  nothing  can  successfully  be  urged.  The 
first  is,  that  the  account  of  the  fall  of  the  first  pair  is  a 
part  of  a  continuous  history.  The  creation  of  the 
world,  of  man,  of  woman ;  the  planting  of  the  garden 
of  Eden,  and  the  placing  of  man  there  ;  the  duties  and 
prohibitions  laid  upon  him ;  his  disobedience  ;  his  ex- 
pulsion from  the  garden  ;  the  subsequent  birth  of  his 
children,  their  lives  and  actions,  and  those  of  their  pos- 
terity, down  to  the  flood ;  and,  from  that  event,  to  the 
life  of  Abraham,  are  given  in  the  same  plain  and  un- 


FALI,     OF    MAN.  195 

adorned  narrative,  brief,  but  yet  simple,  and  with  no  in- 
timation at  all,  either  from  the  elevation  of  the  style  or 
otherwise,  that  a  fable  or  allegory  is  in  any  part  intro- 
duced. If  this,  then,  be  the  case,  and  the  evidence  of  it 
lies  upon  the  very  face  of  the  history,  it  is  clear,  that  if 
the  account  of  the  fall  be  excerpted  from  the  whole  nar- 
rative as  allegorical,  any  subsequent  part,  from  Abel  to 
Noah,  from  Noah  to  Abraham,  from  Abraham  to  Moses, 
may  be  excerpted  for  the  same  reason,  which  is  neither 
more  nor  less  than  this,  that  it  does  not  agree  with  the 
theological  opinions  of  the  interpreter;  and  thus  the 
whole  of  the  Pentateuch  may  be  rejected  as  a  history, 
and  converted  into  a  fable.  One  of  these  consequen- 
ces must,  therefore,  follow,  either  that  the  account  of 
the  fall  must  be  taken  as  history,  or  the  historical  char- 
acter of  the  whole  five  books  of  Moses  must  be  unset- 
tled ;  and  if  none  but  infidels  will  go  to  the  latter  con- 
sequence, then  no  one  who  admits  the  Pentateuch  to  be 
a  true  history  generally,  can  consistently  refuse  to  admit 
the  story  of  the  fall  of  the  first  pair  to  be  a  narrative  of 
real  events. 

"  The  other  indisputable  fact  to  which  I  have  just 
now  adverted,  as  establishing  the  literal  sense  of  the  his- 
tory, is  that,  as  such,  it  is  referred  to  and  reasoned  upon 
in  various  parts  of  Scripture. 

"  Job  XX.  4,  5  :  '  Knowest  thou  not  this  of  old,  since 
man  was  placed  upon  earth,  that  the  triumphing  of  the 
wicked  is  short,  and  the  joy  of  the  hypocrite  but  for  a 
moment  ?'  The  first  part  of  the  quotation  '  might  as 
well  have  been  rendered,  since  Adam  was  placed  on 
the  earth.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  but  that  this 
passage  refers  to  the  fall  and  the  first  sin  of  man.  The 
date  agrees,  for  the  knowledge  here  taught  is  said  to 
arise  from  facts  as  old  as  the  first  placing  of  man  upon 
earth,  and  the  sudden  punishment  of  the  iniquity  cor- 
responds to  the  Mosaic  account — the  triumpliing  of  the 
wicked  is  short,  his  joy  but  for  a  moment.' 


196  FALL     OF    MAFT, 

"  Job  xxxi.  33  :  '  If  I  covered  my  transgression  as 
Adam,  by  hiding  my  inquity  in  my  bosom.' 

"  Job  XV.  14  :  '  What  is  man,  that  he  should  be  clean  ? 
and  he  that  is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  be  right- 
eous?' Why  not  clean?  Did  God  make  woman  or 
man  unclean  at  the  beginning  ?  If  he  did,  the  expos- 
tulation would  have  been  more  apposite,  and  much 
stronger,  had  the  true  cause  been  assigned,  and  Job  had 
said,  '  How  canst  thou  expect  cleanness  in  man,  whom 
thou  createdst  unclean  ?'  But,  as  the  case  now  stands, 
the  expostulation  has  a  plain  reference  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  vanity  and  corruption  by  the  sin  of  the  woman, 
and  is  an  evidence  that  this  ancient  writer  was  sensible 
of  the  evil  consequences  of  the  fall  upon  the  whole 
race  of  man.  '  Eden  '  and  '  garden  of  the  Lord  '  are 
also  frequently  referred  to  in  the  Prophets.  We  have 
the  '  tree  of  life '  mentioned  several  times  in  the  Prov- 
erbs and  in  the  Revelation.  '  God,'  says  Solomon, 
*  made  man  upright.'  The  enemies  of  Christ  and  his 
Church  are  spoken  of,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments, under  the  names  of  '  the  serpent,'  and  '  the 
dragon  ;'  and  the  habit  of  the  serpent  to  lick  the  dust 
is  also  referred  to  by  Isaiah. 

''  If  the  history  of  the  fall,  as  recorded  by  Moses ,. 
were  an  allegory,  or  any  thing  but  a  literal  history, 
several  of  the  above  allusions  would  have  no  meaning ; 
but  the  matter  is  put  beyond  all  possible  doubt  in  the 
New  Testament,  unless  the  same  culpable  liberties  be 
taken  with  the  interpretation  of  the  words  of  our  Lord 
and  of  St.  Paul  as  with  those  of  the  Jewish  lawgiver. 
Our  Lord  says,  Matt.  xix.  4,  5,  '  Have  ye  not  read,  that 
he  which  made  them  at  the  beginning,  made  them  male 
and  female  ;  and  said.  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave 
father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife ;  and 
they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh  ?'  This  is  an  argument  on 
the  subject  of  divorces,  and  its  foundation  rests  upon 
two  of  the  facts  recorded  by  Moses.  1.  That  God 
made  at  first  but  two  human  beings,  from  whom  all  the 


if  ALL    OF    MAN.  197 

rest  have  sprung.  2.  That  the  intimacy  and  indissolu- 
bility of  the  marriage  relation  rests  upon  the  formation 
of  the  woman  from  the  man  ;  for  our  Lord  quotes  the 
words  in  Genesis,  where  the  obligation  of  man  to  cleave 
to  his  wife  is  immediately  connected  with  that  circum- 
stance. 'And  Adam  said,  This  is  now  bone  of  my 
bone,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh  :  she  shall  be  called  woman, 
because  she  was  taken  out  of  man.  Therefore  shall  a 
man  leave  his  father  and  his  mother,  and  shall  cleave 
unto  his  wife ;  and  they  shall  be  one  flesh.'  This  is 
sufficiently  in  proof  that  both  our  Lord  and  the  Phari- 
sees considered  this  early  part  of  the  history  of  Moses 
as  a  narrative  ;  for  otherwise,  it  would  neither  have  been 
a  reason,  on  his  part,  for  the  doctrine  which  he  was  in- 
culcating, nor  have  had  any  force  of  conviction  as  to 
them.  '  In  Adam,'  says  the  Apostle  Paul,  *  all  die  ;' 
^  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world.'  '  But  I  fear, 
lest  by  any  means,  as  the  serpent  beguiled  Eve  through 
his  subtlety,  so  your  minds  should  be  corrupted  from 
the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ.'  In  the  last  passage, 
the  instrument  of  the  temptation  is  said  to  be  a  serpent, 
and  Eve  is  represented  as  being  first  seduced,  according 
to  the  account  in  Genesis.  This  St.  Paul  repeats,  in 
I  Tim.  ii.  13,  14.  'Adam  was  first  formed,  then  Eve. 
And  Adam  was  not  deceived,  (first,  or  immediately,) 
but  the  woman  being  deceived  was  in  the  transgression.' 
And  offers  this  as  the  reason  of  his  injunction,  '  Let  the 
woman  learn  in  silence  with  all  subjection.'  When, 
therefore,  it  is  -considered  that  these  passages  are  intro- 
ced  not  for  rhetorical  illustration,  or  in  the  way  of 
classical  quotation,  but  are  made  the  basis  of  grave  rea- 
sonings, which  embody  some  of  the  most  important 
doctrines  of  the  Christian  revelation  ;  and  of  important 
social  duties  and  points  of  Christian  order  and  deco- 
rum ;  it  would  be  to  charge  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  with  the  grossest  absurdity,  with  even  cul- 
pable and  unworthy  trifling,  to  suppose  them  to  argue 
from  the  history  of  the  fall  as  a  narrative,  when  they 
17* 


19S  FALL    OF    MAN. 

knew  it  to  be  an  allegory ;  and  if  we  are,  therefore^ 
compelled  to  allow  that  it  was  understood  as  a  real 
history  by  our  Lord  and  his  inspired  Apostles,  those 
speculations  of  modern  critics,  which  convert  it  into  a 
parable,  stand  branded  with  their  true  character  of  infi- 
del and  semi-infidel  termerity." — Watson. 

Having  thus  established  the  fall  of  the  first  man,  we 
now  propose  proving  that  all  men  are  born  into  the 
world  with  a  corrupt  or  depraved  nature. 

I.  "  We  argue  the  general  corruption  of  human  nature 
from  the  fall  and  corruption  of  the  first  man,  from  whom 
all  men  have  received  their  existence  by  way  of  natural 
descent. 

''  We  have  shown,  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  the 
first  man  was  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness, 
that  he  bore  the  impress  of  the  hand  that  made  him,  and 
shone  in  the  likeness  of  his  divine  Author.  Now  as 
righteousness  and  true  holiness  constituted  the  moral 
character  or  nature  of  man,  as  he  came  from  the  hand 
of  his  Creator,  it  must  follow  that  this  divine  image  was 
designed  for  his  descendants,  and  would  have  been 
communicated  to  them,  had  he  not  sinned  and  lost  it 
himself,  while  all  men  were  yet  in  his  loins.  If,  then, 
the  image  of  God,  wherein  the  first  man  was  created, 
was  designed  to  have  been  transmitted  to  his  offspring, 
it  must  appear  reasonable  that  nothing  short  of  a  full 
possession  of  this  image  can  answer  the  claims  of  the 
law  of  our  creation  ;  for  it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that 
God  created  man  in  a  higher  state  of  moral  perfection 
than  is  necessary  to  answer  the  claims,  and  secure  the 
glory  of  the  moral  government  which  he  exercises  over 
the  human  fimiily  ;  or  that  he  bestowed  on  man  a  de- 
gree of  moral  holiness,  which  he  did  not  secure  from 
desecration  by  the  direct  interposition  of  moral  obliga- 
tion, or  which  might  be  lost  or  squandered  on  the  part 
of  man,  without  incurring  moral  guilt.  It  is  clear, 
from  this,  that  any  state  of  human  nature  which  comes 
short  of  that  moral   perfection,  or  that  divine  image 


FALL     OF    MAN*  199 

which  God  bestowed,  when  he  created  man,  must  be 
regarded  as  a  lapsed  state,  coming  short  of  that  right- 
eousness which  the  perfect  law  of  our  Creator  requires, 
and  consequently,  a  sinful  state,  '  for  all  unrighteous- 
ness is  sin.'  Ifj  then,  a  want  of  the  image  of  God, 
which  consists  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness,  con- 
stitutes a  fallen  and  sinful  state,  it  only  remains  to  show 
farther,  that  man  does  not  by  nature  now  possess  this 
divine  image.  Now,  when  Adam  sinned,  he  must  have 
lost  the  image  of  his  Maker ;  for  it  would  be  absurd  to 
suppose  that  the  image  of  God,  consisting  in  righteous- 
ness and  true  holiness,  could  be  possessed  by  man,  and 
he  be  a  sinner  at  the  same  time,  guilty  before  God,  and 
a  subject  of  divine  punishment.  As  well  might  it  be 
said,  that  God  could  consistently  condemn  and  pour  a 
divine  curse  upon  his  own  image  !  As  well  might  it  be 
said  that  sin  and  holiness  once  formed  a  harmonious 
alliance !  Tliat  Adam  was  righteous  and  truly  holy, 
and  unrighteous,  polluted,  and  guilty,  at  the  same  time. 
It  is  certain,  then,  that  Adam  could  not  have  retained 
the  image' of  his  Maker  after  he  sinned,  and  being  des- 
titute of  it  himself,  he  could  not  communicate  it  to  his 
offspring  ;  for  no  being  can  communicate  to  another  that 
which  he  does  not  himself  possess."  — Lee. 

II.  We  argue  the  hereditary  depravity  of  human 
nature  from  the  following  facts,  for  which  it  is  impossible 
to  assign  any  cause,  upon  the.  hypothesis  of  man's  nat- 
ural innocence : 

1.,  "That  in  all  ages  great,  and  even  general  wick- 
edness has  prevailed  among  those  large  masses  of  men 
which  are  called  nations. 

"  So  far  as  it  relates  to  the  immediate  descendants  of 
Adam  before  the  flood  ;  to  all  the  nations  of  the  hi^h- 
est  antiquity  ;  to  the  Jews  throughout  every  period  of 
their  history,  down  to  their  final  dispersion  ;  and  to  the 
empires  and  other  states  whose  history  is  involved  in 
theirs;  we  have  tlie  historical   evidence  of  Scripture, 


200  TALL    OF    MAK. 

and  much  collateral  evidence  also  from  their  owll 
historians. 

"  To  what  does  this  evidence  go,  but  to  say  the  least, 
the  actual  depravity  of  the  majority  of  mankind  in  all 
these  ages  and  among  all  these  nations  ?  As  to  the  race 
before  the  flood,  a  murderer  sprang  up  in  the  first  family, 
and  the  world  became  increasingly  corrupt,  until  '  God 
saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great,  and  that 
every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only 
evil  continually  ;'  *  that  all  flesh  had  corrupted  their 
way  upon  earth ;'  and  that  '  the  earth  was  filled  with 
violence  through  them.'  Only  Noah  was  found  right- 
eous before  God ;  and  because  of  the  universal  wick- 
edness, a  wickedness  which  spurned  all  warning,  and 
resisted  all  correction,  the  flood  was  brought  upon  the 
world  of  the  ungodly,  as  a  testimony  of  Divine  anger. 

^'  The  same  course  of  increasing  wickedness  is  ex- 
hibited in  the  sacred  records  as  taking  place  after  the 
flood.  The  building  of  the  tower  of  Babel  was  a  wick- 
ed act,  done  by  general  concert,  before  the  division  of 
nations  ;  this  we  know  from  its  having  excited  the  Di- 
vine displeasure,  though  we  know  not  in  what  the  par- 
ticular crime  consisted.  After  the  division  of  nations, 
the  history  of  the  times  of  Abraham,  Lot,  Jacob,  Jo- 
seph, and  Moses  sufliciently  show  that  idolatry,  injustice, 
oppression,  and  gross  sensualities  characterized  the  peo- 
ple of  Caanan,  Egypt,  and  every  other  country  men- 
tioned in  the  Mosaic  narrative. 

*'  The  obstinate  inclination  of  the  Israelites  to  idola- 
try, through  all  ages  to  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and 
the  general  prevalence  of  vice  among  men,  is  acknow- 
ledged in  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament.  Their 
moral  wickedness  after  their  return  from  Babylon, 
when  they  no  longer  practiced  idolatry,  and  were, 
therefore,  delivered  from  that  most  fruitful  source  of 
crime,  may  be  collected  from  the  writers  of  the  Old 
Testament  who  lived  after  that  event ;  and  their  gen- 
eral corruption  in  the  time  of  our  Lord   and  his  Apos- 


^  FALL     OF    MAN.  201 

ties  stands  forth  with  disgusting  prominence  in  the  wri- 
tings of  Josephus,  their  own  historian. 

"  As  to  all  other  ancient  nations,  of  whom  we  have 
any  history,  the  accounts  agree  in  stating  the  general 
prevalence  of  practical  immorality  and  of  malignant 
and  destructive  passions ;  and,  if  we  had  no  such  ac- 
knowledgments from  themselves  ;  if  no  such  reproaches 
were  mutually  cast  upon  each  other ;  if  history  were 
not,  as  indeed  it  is,  a  record  of  crimes,  in  action  and  in 
detail ;  and  if  poets,  moralists,  and  satirists  did  not  all 
give  their  evidence,  by  assuming  that  men  were  in- 
fluenced by  general  principles  of  vice,  expressing  them- 
selves in  particular  modes  in  different  ages,  the  follow- 
ing great  facts  would  prove  the  case : 

''  The  fact  of  general  religious  error,  and  that 
in  the  very  fundamental  principles  of  religion,  such  as 
the  existence  of  one  only  God  ;  which  universal  corrup- 
tion of  doctrine  among  all  the  ancient  nations  mentioned 
above,  shows  both  indifference  to  truth  and  hostility 
against  it,  and  therefore  proves,  at  least,  the  general 
corruption  of  men's  hearts,  of  which  even  indifference 
to  religious  truth  is  a  sufficient  indication. 

"  The  universal  prevalence  of  idolatry,  which  not 
only  argues  great  debasement  of  intellect,  but  deep 
wickedness  of  heart,  because,  in  all  ages,  idolatry  has 
been  more  or  less  immoral  in  its  influence,  and  generally 
grossly  so,  by  leading  directly  to  sanguinary  and  im- 
pure practices. 

"  The  prevalence  of  superstition  wherever  idolatry 
has  prevailed,  and  often  when  that  has  not  existed,  is 
another  proof.  The  essence  of  this  evil  is  the  transfer 
of  fear  and  hope  from  God  to  real  or  imaginary  crea- 
tures and  things,  and  so  is  a  renunciation  of  allegiance 
to  God,  as  the  Governor  of  the  world,  and  a  practical 
denial  either  of  his  being  or  his  providence. 

"  Aggressive  wars,  in  the  guilt  of  which  all  nations 
and  all  uncivilized  tribes  have  been,  in  all  ages  involved^ 


202  FALL    OF    MAN. 

and  which  necessarily  suppose  hatred,  revenge,  cruelty, 
injustice,  and  ambition. 

"  In  all  Heathen  nations,  idolatry,  superstition,  fraud, 
oppression,  and  vices  of  almost  every  description  show 
the  general  state  of  society  to  be  exceedingly  and  even 
destructively  corrupt ;  and  though  Mohammedan  na- 
tions escape  the  charge  of  idolatry,  yet  pride,  avarice, 
oppression,  injustice,  cruelty,  sensuahty,  and  gross 
superstition,  are  all  prevalent  among  them. 

^'  The  case  of  Christian  nations,  though  in  them  im- 
morality is  more  powerfully  checked  than  in  any  other, 
and  many  bright  and  influential  examples  of  the  high- 
est virtue  are  found  among  their  inhabitants,  sufficient- 
ly proves  that  the  majority  are  corrupt  and  vicious  in 
their  habits.  The  impiety  and  profaneness  ;  the  ne- 
glect of  the  fear  and  worship  of  God ;  the  fraud  and 
villany  continually  taking  place  in  the  commerce  of 
mankind ;  the  intemperance  of  various  kinds  which  is 
found  among  all  classes  ;  the  oppression  of  the  poor ; 
and  many  other  evils,  are  in  proof  of  this  ;  and,  indeed, 
we  may  confidently  conclude,  that  no  advocate  of  the 
natural  innocence  of  man  will  contend  that  the  majori- 
ty of  men,  even  in  this  country,  are  actually  virtuous 
in  their  external  conduct,  and  much  less  that  the  fear 
and  love  of  God  and  habitual  respect  to  his  will,  which 
are,  indeed,  the  only  principles  which  can  be  deemed 
to  constitute  a  person  righteous,  influence  the  people  at 
large,  or  even  any  very  large  proportion  of  them. 

"  The  fact,  then,  is  established,  which  was  before 
laid  down,  that  men  in  all  ages  and  in  all  places  have, 
at  least,  been  generally  wicked. 

"  2.  The  second  fact  to  be  accounted  for  is,  the 
strength  of  that  tendency  to  the  wickedness  which  we 
have  seen  to  be  general. 

*'  The  strength  of  the  corrupting  principle,  whatever 
it  may  be,  is  marked  by  two  circumstances. 

"  The  first  is,  the  greatness  of  the  crimes  to  which 
men  have  abandoned  themselves. 


*  FALL    OF    MAN.  203 

"If  the  effects  of  the  corrupt  principle  had  only 
been  manifested  in  trifling  errors,  and  practical  infirmi- 
ties, a  softer  view  of  the  moral  condition  in  which  man 
is  born  into  the  world  might,  probably,  have  been  ad- 
mitted ;  but  in  the  catalogue  of  human  crimes,  in  all 
ages,  and  among  great  numbers  of  all  nations,  but  more 
especially  among  those  nations  where  there  has  been 
the  least  control  of  religion,  and,  therefore,  where  the 
natural  dispositions  of  men  have  exhibited  themselves 
under  the  simplest  and  most  convincing  evidence,  we 
find  frauds,  oppressions,  faithlessness,  barbarous  cruel- 
ties and  murders,  unfeeling  oppressions,  falsehoods, 
every  kind  of  uncleanness,  uncontrolled  anger,  deadly 
hatred  and  ,  revenge,  as  to  their  fellow  creatures,  and 
proud  and  scornful  rebellion  against  God. 

"  The  second  is,  the  number  and  influence  of  the 
checks  and  restraints  against  which  this  tide  of  wicked- 
ness has  urged  on  its  almost  resistless  and  universal 
course. 

"It  has  opposed  itself  against  the  law  of  God,  in 
some  degree  found  among  all  men ;  consequently, 
against  the  checks  and  remorse  of  conscience ;  against 
a  settled  conviction  of  the  evil  of  most  of  the  actions 
indulged  in,  which  is  shown  by  their  having  been 
blamed  in  others  (at  least  whenever  any  have  suffered 
by  them)  by  those  who  themselves  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  committing  them. 

"  Against  the  restraints  of  human  laws,  and  the  au- 
thority of  magistrates  ;  for,  in  all  ancient  states,  the 
moral  corruption  continued  to  spread  until  they  were 
politically  dissolved,  society  not  being  able  to  hold  itself 
together,  in  consequence  of  the  excessive  height  to 
which  long  indulgence  had  raised  passion  and  appe- 
tite. 

"  Against  the  provision  made  to  check  human  vices 
by  that  judicial  act  of  the  Governor  of  the  world,  by 
which  he  shortened  the  life  of  man,  and  rendered  it  un- 
certain, and,  at  the  longest,  brief. 


204  FALL    OF    MAN* 

"  Against  another  provision  made  by  the  Governor 
of  the  world,  in  part  with  the  same  view,  i.  e»  the 
dooming  of  man  to  earn  his  sustenance  by  labor^  and 
thus  providing  for  the  occupation  of  the  greater  portion 
of  time  in  what  was  innocent,  and  rendering  the  means 
of  sensual  indulgences  more  scanty,  and  the  opportuni- 
ties of  actual  immorality  more  limited. 

"  Against  the  restraints  put  upon  vice  by  rendering 
it,  by  the  constitution  and  the  very  nature  of  things, 
the  source  of  misery  of  all  kinds  and  degrees,  national, 
domestic,  personal,  mental,  and  bodily. 

"  Against  the  terrible  judgments  which  God  has,  in 
all  ages,  brought  upon  wicked  nations  and  notorious  in- 
dividuals, many  of  which  visitations  were  known  and 
acknowledo^ed  to  be  the  signal  manifestations  of  his  dis- 
pleasure  against  their  vices. 

"  Against  those  counteractive  and  reforming  influ- 
ences of  the  revelations  of  the  will  and  mercy  of  God^ 
which  at  different  times  have  been  vouchsafed  to  the 
world  :  as,  against  the  light  and  influence  of  the  patri- 
archal religion  before  the  ffivino-  of  the  law  ;  ao;ainst  the 
Mosaic  institute,  and  the  warnings  of  prophets  among 
the  Jews ;  against  the  religious  knowledge  which  was 
transmitted  from  them  among  heathen  nations  connected 
with  their  history,  at  different  periods  ;  against  the  in- 
fluence of  Christianity  when  introduced  into  the  Roman 
empire,  and  when  transmitted  to  the  Gothic  nations,  by 
all  of  whom  it  was  grossly  corrupted ;  and  against  the 
control  of  the  same  Divine  religion  in  our  ow  n  country, 
where  it  is  exhibited  in  its  purity,  and  in  which  the 
most  active  endeavors  are  adopted  to  enlighten  and  cor- 
rect society. 

"  It  is  impossible  to  consider  the  number  and  power 
of  these  checks  without  acknowledging,  that  those  prin- 
ciples in  human  nature  which  give  rise  to  the  mass  of 
moral  evil  which  actually  exists,  and  has  always  existed 
since  men  began  to  multiply  upon  the  earth,  are  most 
powerful  and  formidable  in  their  tendency. 


FALL    OF    MAN*  205 

"  3.  The  third  fact  is,  that  the  seeds  of  the  vices 
which  exist  in  society  may  be  discovered  in  children  in 
their  earhest  years ;  selfishness,  envy,  pride,  resent-* 
ment,  deceit,  lying,  and  often  cruelty ;  and  so  much  is 
this  the  case,  so  exphcitly  is  this  acknowledged  by  all, 
that  it  is  the  principal  object  of  the  moral  branch  of 
education  to  restrain  and  correct  those  evils,  both  by 
coercion,  and  by  diligently  impressing  upon  children, 
as  their  faculties  open,  the  evil  and  mischief  of  all  such 
affections  and  tendencies. 

"  4.  The  fourth  fact  is,  that  every  man  is  conscious 
of  a  natural  tendency  to  many  evils. 

"  These  tendencies  are  different  in  degree  and  in 
kind.  In  some  they  move  to  ambition,  and  pride, 
and  excessive  love  of  honor ;  in  others,  to  anger,  re- 
venge, and  unplacableness ;  in  others,  to  cowardice, 
meanness,  and  fear  ;  in  others,  to  avarice,  care,  and  dis- 
trust ;  in  others,  to  sensuality  and  prodigality.  But 
where  is  the  man  who  has  not  his  peculiar  constitutional 
tendency  to  some  evil  in  one  of  these  classes  ?  But 
there  are,  also,  evil  tendencies  common  to  all.  These 
are,  to  love  creatures  more  than  God ;  to  forget  God ; 
to  be  indifferent  to  our  obligations  to  him  ;  to  regard  the 
opinions  of  men  more  than  the  approbation  of  God  ;  to 
be  more  influenced  by  the  visible  things  which  surround 
us  than  by  the  invisible  God,  whose  eye  is  ever  upon 
us,  and  by  that  invisible  state  to  which  we  are  all 
hastening. 

"  5.  The  fifth  fact  is,  that,  even  after  a  serious  wish 
and  intention  has  been  formed  in  men  to  renounce  these 
views,  and  '  to  live  righteously,  soberly,  and  godly,'  as 
becomes  creatures  made  to  glorify  God  and  on  their 
trial  for  eternity,  strong  and  constant  resistance  is  made 
by  the  passions,  appetites,  and  inclinations  of  the  heart 
at  every  step  of  the  attempt. 

"  This  is  so  clearly  a  matter  of  universal  experience, 
that,  in  the  moral  writings  of  every  age  and  country, 
and  in  the  very  phrases  and  turns  of  all  languages,  vir- 
18 


206  FALL    OF    MAN. 

tue  is  associated  with  difficulty,  and  represented  under 
the  notion  of  a  warfare.  Virtue  has  always,  therefore, 
been  represented  as  the  subject  of  acquirement ;  and 
resistance  of  evil  as  being  necessary  to  its  preservation. 
It  has  been  made  to  consist  in  self-rule,  which  is,  of 
course,  restraint  upon  opposite  tendencies  ;  the  mind  is 
said  to  be  subject  to  diseases,  and  the  remedy  for  these 
diseases  is  placed  in  something  outward  to  itself — in  re- 
ligion, among  inspired  men  ;  in  philosophy,  among  the 
Heathen. 

''  This  constant  struggle  against  the  rules  and  resolves 
of  virtue  has  been  acknowledged  in  all  ages,  and  among 
Christian  nations  more  especially,  where,  just  as  the 
knowledge  of  what  the  Divine  law  requires  is  diffused, 
the  sense  of  the  difficulty  of  approaching  to  its  requisi- 
tions is  felt ;  and  in  proportion  as  the  efforts  made  to 
conform  to  it  are  sincere,  is  the  despair  which  arises 
from  repeated  and  constant  defeats,  when  the  aid  of 
Divine  grace  is  not  called  in.  '  O  wretched  man  that 
I  am  !  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this 
death  ?' 

"These  five  facts,  above  enumerated: — 1.  The 
general  corruption  of  manners  in  all  times  and  countries. 
2.  The  strength  of  the  tendency  in  man  to  evil.  3.  The 
early  appearance  of  the  principles  of  various  vices  in 
children.  4.  Every  man's  consciousness  of  a  natural 
tendency  in  his  mind  to  one  or  more  evils.  5.  That 
general  resistance  to  virtue  in  the  heart,  which  renders 
education,  influence,  watchfulness,  and  conflict  neces- 
sary to  counteract  the  force  of  evil.  These  facts, 
which,  it  is  presumed,  cannot  be  denied,  and  which 
have  the  confirmation  of  ^history  and  experience  are  to 
be  accounted  for. 

"  That  they  are  easily  and  fully  accounted  for  by  the 
Scriptural  doctrine  is  obvious.  The  fountain  is  bitter,  and 
the  tree  is  corrupt ;  the  bitter  stream  and  the  bad  fruit 
are,  therefore,  the  natural  consequences.  But  the  advo- 
cates of  man's  natural  innocence  have  no  means  of  ac- 


FALL    OF    MAN.  207 

counting  for  these  moral  phenomena,  except  by  refer- 
ring them  to  bad  example  and  a  vicious  education. 

''  Let  us  take  the  first.  To  account  for  general 
wickedness,  they  refer  to  general  example. 

''  But,  1.  This  does  not  account  for  the  introduction 
of  moral  wickedness.  The  children  of  Adam  were  not 
born  until  after  the  repentance  of  our  first  parents  and 
tlieir  restoration  to  the  Divine  favor.  They  appear  to 
have  been  his  devout  worshippers,  and  to  have  had  ac- 
cess to  his  '  presence,'  the  visible  glory  of  the  Schechi- 
nah.  From  what  example,  then,  did  Cain  learn  malice, 
hatred,  and,  finally,  murder?  Example  will  not  ac- 
count, also,  for  the  too  common  fact  of  the  children  of 
highly  virtuous  parents  becoming  immoral ;  for,  since 
the  examples  nearest  to  them  and  constantly  present 
with  them  are  good  examples,  if  the  natural  disposition 
were  as  good  as  this  hypothesis  assumes,  the  good  ex- 
ample always  present  ought  to  be  more  influential  than 
bad  examples  at  a  distance,  and  only  occasionally  seen 
or  heard  of. 

"  2.  If  men  are  naturally  disposed  to  good,  or  only 
not  indisposed  to  it,  it  is  not  accounted  for,  on  this 
hypothesis,  how  bad  example  should  have  become  gene- 
ral, that  is,  how  men  should  generally  have  become 
wicked. 

"If  the  natural  disposition  be  more  in  favor  of  good 
than  evil,  then  there  ought  to  have  been  more  good 
than  evil  in  the  world,  which  is  contradicted  by  fact ; 
if  there  had  been  only  an  indifference  in  our  minds  to 
good  and  evil,  then,  at  least,  the  quantum  of  vice  and 
virtue  in  society  ought  to  have  been  pretty  equally 
divided,  which  is  also  contrary  to  fact ;  and  also  it  ought 
to  have  followed  from  this,  that  at  least  all  the  children 
of  virtuous  persons  would  have  been  virtuous  :  that,  for 
instance,  the  descendants  of  Seth  would  have  followed 
in  succession  the  steps  of  their  righteous  forefathers, 
though  the  children  of  Cain  (passing  by  the  difficulty 
of  his  own  lapse,)  should  have  become   vicious.     On 


208  FALL    OF   MAN. 

neither  supposition  can  the  existence  of  a  general  ei^A 
example  in  the  world  be  accounted  for.  It  ought  not 
to  have  existed,  and  if  so,  the  general  corruption  of 
mankind  cannot  be  explained  by  it. 

"3.  This  very  method  of  explaining  the  general 
viciousness  of  society  does  itself  suppose  the  power  of 
bad  example  ;  and,  indeed,  in  this  it  agrees  with  univer- 
sal opinion.  All  the  moralists  of  public  and  domestic 
life,  all  professed  teachers,  all  friends  of  youth,  all 
parents  have  repeated  their  cautions  against  evil  socie- 
ty to  those  whom  they  wished  to  preserve  from  vice. 
The  v/ritings  of  moralists.  Heathen  and  inspired,  are 
full  of  these  admonitions,  and  they  are  embodied  in  the 
proverbs  and  wise  traditional  sayings  of  all  civilized 
nations.  But  the  very  force  of  evil  example  can  only 
be  accounted  for,  by  supposing  a  proneness  in  youth  to 
be  corrupted  by  it.  Why  should  it  be  more  influential 
than  good  example,  a  fact  universally  acknowledged, 
and  so  strongly  felt  that,  for  one  person  preserved  by 
the  sole  influence  of  a  good  example,  every  body  ex- 
pects that  a  great  number  would  be  corrupted  by  an 
evil  one  ?  But  if  the  hypothesis  of  man's  natural  in- 
nocence were  true,  this  ought  not  to  be  expected  as  a 
probable,  much  less  as  a  certain  result.  Bad  example 
would  meet  with  resistance  from  a  good  nature ;  and  it 
would  be  much  more  difficult  to  influence  by  bad  ex- 
amples than  by  good  ones. 

"  4.  Nor  does  example  account  for  the  other  facts  in 
the  above  enumeration.  It  does  not  account  for  that 
strong  bias  to  evil  in  men,  which,  in  all  ages,  has  borne 
down  the  most  powerful  restraints ;  for  from  this  ten- 
dency that  corrupt  general  example  has  sprung,  which 
is  alleged  as  the  cause  of  it ;  and  it  must,  therefore, 
have  existed  previously,  because  the  general  example, 
that  is,  the  general  corrupt  practice  of  men  is  its  effect. 
We  cannot,  in  this  way,  account  for  the  early  manifes- 
tation of  wrong  principles,  tempers,  and  affections  in 
children ;  since  they  appear  at  an  age  when  example 


FALL    OF    MAN,  209 

can  have  little  influence,  and  even  when  the  surround- 
ing examples  are  good,  as  well  as  when  they  are  evil. 
Why,  too,  should  virtue  always  be  found  more  or  less  a 
conflict  ?  so  that  self-government  and  self-resistance  are, 
in  all  cases,  necessary  for  its  preservation.  The  exam- 
ple of  others  will  not  account  for  this  ;  for  mere  ex- 
ample can  only  influence  when  it  is  approved  by  the 
judgment;  but  here  is  a  case  in  which  evil  is  not  ap- 
proved, in  which  '  whatsoever  things  are  true,  what- 
soever things  are  pure,'  are  approved,  desired,  and 
cultivated ;  and  yet  the  resistance  of  the  heart  to  the 
judgment  is  so  powerful,  that  a  constant  warfare  and  a 
strict  command  are  necessary  to  perseverance. 

''Let  us,  then,  see  whether  a  bad  education,  the 
other  cause,  usually  alleged  to  account  for  these  facts, 
willbe  more  successful. 

"  1.  This  cause  will  no  more  account  for  the  intro- 
duction of  passions  so  hateful  as  those  of  Cain,  issuing 
in  a  fratricide  so  odious,  into  the  family  of  Adam,  than 
will  example.  As  there  vv^as  no  example  of  these  evils 
in  the  primeval  family,  so  certainly  there  was  no  educa- 
tion which  could  incite  and  encourage  them.  We  are, 
also,  left  still  without  a  reason  why,  in  well-ordered  and 
religious  families,  where  education  and  the  example, 
too,  is  good,  so  many  instances  of  their  inefficacy  should 
occur.  If  bad  education  corrupts  a  naturally  well-dis- 
posed mind,  then  a  good  education  ought  still  more 
powerfully  to  affect  it,  and  give  it  a  right  tendency.  It 
is  allowed,  that  good  example  and  good  education  are, 
in  many  instances,  effectual ;  but  we  can  account  for 
them,  without  giving  up  the  doctrine  of  the  natural  cor- 
ruption of  the  heart.  It  is,  however,  impossible  for 
those  to  account  for  those  failures  of  both  example  and 
instruction  which  often  take  place,  since,  on  the  hy- 
pothesis of  man's  natural  innocence  and  good  disposi- 
tion, they  ought  never  to  occur,  or,  at  least,  but  in  very 
rare  cases,  and  when  some  singular  counteracting  ex- 
ternal causes  happen  to  come  into  operation. 
18* 


210  fALL   or  MA^. 

"  2.  We  may  also  ask,  how  it  came  to  pass,  unless 
there  were  a  predisposing  cause  to  it,  that  education,  as 
well  as  example,  should  have  been  generally  bad  ?  Of 
education,  indeed,  men  are  usually  more  careful  than 
of  example.  The  lips  are  often  right  when  the  life  is 
wrong  ;  and  many  practise  evil  who  will  not  go  so  far 
as  to  teach  it.  If  human  nature,  then,  be  born  pure, 
or,  at  worst,  equally  disposed  to  good  and  evil,  then  the 
existence  of  a  generally  corrupting  system  of  educa- 
tion, in  all  countries  and  among  all  people,  cannot  be 
accounted  for.  We  have  an  effect  either  contrary  to 
the  assigned  cause,  or  one  to  which  the  cause  is  not 
adequate — it  is  the  case  of  a  pure  fountain  sending  forth 
corrupt  streams  ;  or  that  of  a  stream  which,  if  turbid, 
has  a  constant  tendency  to  defecation,  and  yet  becomes 
still  more  muddy  as  it  flows  along  its  course. 

"3.  It  is  not,  however,  the  fact,  that  education  is 
directly  and  universally  so  corrupting  a  cause  as  to  ac- 
count for  the  depravity  of  mankind.  In  many  instances 
it  has  been  defective ;  it  has  often  inculcated  false 
views  of  interest  and  honor ;  it  has  fostered  prejudices, 
and  even  national,  though  not  social,  hatreds  ;  but  it 
has  only  in  few  cases  been  employed  to  teach  those 
vices  into  which  men  have  commonly  fallen.  In  fact, 
education,  in  all  countries,  has  been,  in  no  small  degree, 
opposed  to  vice  ;  and,  as  the  majority  of  the  worst  peo- 
ple among  us  would  shudder  to  have  their  children  in- 
structed in  the  vices  which  they  themselves  practise,  so, 
in  the  worst  nations  of  antiquity,  the  characters  of 
schoolmasters  were  required  to  be  correct,  and  many 
principles  and  maxims  of  a  virtuous  kind  were,  doubt- 
less, taught  to  children. 

"  4.  To  come  to  the  other  facts  which  must  be  ac- 
counted for,  education  is  placed  upon  the  same  ground 
in  the  argument  as  example.  The  early  evil  disposi- 
tions in  children  cannot  thus  be  explained,  for  they  ap- 
pear before  education  commences  ;  nor  does  any  man 
refer  to  education  his  propensity  to  constitutional  sins ; 


FALL    OF    MAN.  211 

the  resistance  he  often  feels  to  good  in  his  heart ;  his 
proneness  to  forget  God,  and  to  be  indifferent  to  spiritual 
and  eternal  objects  ;  all  these  he  feels  to  be  opposed  to 
those  very  principles  which  his  judgment  approves,  and 
with  which  it  was  furnished  by  education. 

"  It  is  only,  then,  by  the  Scriptural  account  of  the 
natural  and  hereditary  corruption  of  the  human  race, 
commonly  called  original  sin,  that  these  facts  are  fully 
accounted  for ;  and  as  the  facts  themselves  cannot  be 
denied,"  ( Watson,)  it  must  follow  that  man  is  fallen, 
and  now  possesses  a  corrupt  and  sinful  nature,  from 
which  all  his  unholy  passions  and  actions  flow. 

III.  If  human  nature  is  not  depraved  and  sinful,  but 
perfectly  holy,  a  doctrine  for  which  the  compiler  of  this 
work  has  heard  many  Unitarians  contend,  especially  the 
Rev.  James  Hayes,  who  advocated  it,  in  the  controversy 
alluded  to  on  the  37th  page  of  this  work;  a  doctrine, 
too,  which  may  be  found  in  the  writings  of  all  Unitari- 
ans who  have  written  upon  this  subject,  then  infants  do 
not  stand  in  need  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  for  they  have 
no  sin  for  which  to  atone ;  consequently,  they  must  be 
saved  independent  of  the  blood  of  the  Saviour,  and, 
therefore,  can  never  join  in  the  enraptured  song  of  the 
redeemed,  "unto  him  that  loved  us  and  washed  us  from 
our  sins  in  his  own  blood — to  him  be  glory  both  now 
and  forever."  There  must,  therefore,  if  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin,  or  hereditary,  be  denied,  be  a  jar  in  the 
notes  of  Glory.  But  this  cannot  possibly  be.  There- 
fore, the  doctrine  of  the  natural  corruption  of  human 
nature  must  be  true. 

''  IV.  The  death  and  sufferings  to  which  children 
are  subject,  is  a  proof  that  all  men,  from  their  birth, 
are  '  constituted,'  as  the  Apostle  has  it,  and  treated  as 
'  sinners.'  An  innocent  creature  may  die  ;  no  one  dis- 
putes that ;  but  to  die  was  not  the  original  law  of  our 
species,  and  the  Scriptures  refer  death  solely  to  sin  as 
its  cause.  Throughout  the  sacred  writings,  too,  it  is  re- 
presented as  a  penalty,  as  an  evil  of  the  highest  kind ; 


212  FALL    OF   MAN. 

and  it  is  in  vain  to  find  out  ingenious  reasons  to  prove  it 
a  blessing  to  mankind.  Tiiey  prove  nothing  against 
the  directly  opposite  character  which  has  been  stamped 
upon  death  and  the  suffering  of  moral  disease,  by  the 
testimony  of  God.  On  the  hypothesis  of  man's  natural 
innocence,  the  death  of  the  innocent  is  not  to  be  re- 
conciled to  any  known  attribute  of  God,  to  any  mani- 
fested principle  of  his  moral  government ;  but  on  that 
of  his  natural  corruptness  and  federal  relation  to  Adam 
it  is  explained :  it  is  a  declaration  of  God's  hatred  of 
sin  ;  a  proclamation  of  the  purity  and  inflexibility  of 
his  law ;  while  the  connection  of  this  state,  with  the 
provisions  of  the  covenant  of  gi'ace,  present  '  mercy 
and  truth  meeting  together,  righteousness  and  peace 
kissing  each  other.' 

V.  We  argue  the  doctrine  of  hereditary  depravity 
from  the  express  testimony  of  sacred  writ. 

"  It  is  probable,  though  great  stress  need  not  be  laid 
upon  it,  that  when  it  is  said,  Gen.  v.  3,  that  '  Adam 
begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,'  that  there  is  an  implied 
opposition  between  the. likeness  of  God,  in  which  Adam 
was  made,  and  the  likeness  of  Adam,  in  which  his  son 
was  begotten.  It  is  not  said  that  he  begat  a  son  in  the 
likeness  of  God ;  a  very  appropriate  expression,  if 
Adam  had  not  fallen,  and  if  human  nature  had  sus- 
tained, in  consequence,  no  injury ;  and  such  a  decla- 
ration was  apparently  called  for,  had  this  been  the  case, 
to  show  what  would  have  been  a  very  important  fact, 
that  notwithstanding  the  personal  delinquency  of  Ad- 
am, yet  human  nature  itself  had  sustained  no  deteriora- 
tion, but  was  propagated  without  corruption.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  said  that  he  begat  a  son  in  his  own  like- 
ness ;  which,  probably,  was  mentioned  on  purpose  to 
exclude  the  idea,  that  the  image  of  God  was  heredita- 
bly in  man. 

"  In  Gen.  vi.  5,  it  is  stated,  as  the  cause  of  the  flood, 
that  '  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great 
in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts 


FALL    OF    MAN.  213. 

of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually.'  Here,  it  is  triiey 
that  the  actual  moral  state  of  the  antediluvians  may 
only  be  spoken  of,  and  that  the  text  does  not  directly 
prove  the  doctrine  of  hereditary  depravity :  yet  is  the 
actual  wickedness  of  man  traced  up  to  the  heart,  as  its 
natural  source,  in  a  manner  which  seems  to  intimate 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  natural  corruption  of  man  was 
held  by  the  writer,  and  by  that  his  mode  of  expression 
was  influenced.  The  heart  of  man  is  here  put  for  his 
soul.  This  God  had  formed  with  a  marvellous  think- 
ing power.  But  so  is  his  soul  debased,  that  every  im- 
agination, figment,  formation  of  the  thoughts  of  it,  is 
evil,  only  evil,  continually  evil.  Whatever  it  forms 
within  itself  as  a  thinking  power,  is  an  evil  formation. 
Therefore  all  men's  actual  wickedness  springs  from  the 
evil  formation  of  their  corrupt  heart,  consequently,  they 
are  sinners  from  birth,  or  naturally,  depraved. 

''  That  this  was  the  theological  sentiment  held  and 
taught  by  Moses,  and  imphed  even  in  this  passage,  is 
made  very  clear  by  Gen.  viii.  21  :  '  I  will  not  again 
curse  the  ground  any  more  for  man's  sake :  for  the  im- 
agination of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth  ;  neither 
will  I  again  smite  any  more  every  living  thing.'  The 
sense  of  which  plainly  is,  th^t,  notwithstanding  the 
wickedness  of  mankind,  though  they  sin  from  their 
childhood,  yet  would  he  not,  on  that  account,  again 
destroy  ^  every  living  thing.'     Here  it  is  to  be  observed, 

1.  That  the  words  were  spoken  as  soon  as  Noah  came 
forth  from  the  ark,  and,  therefore,  after  the  antediluvian 
race  of  actual  and  flagrant  transgressors  had  perished, 
and  before  the  family  of  Noah  had  begun  to  multiply 
upon  the  earth  ;  when,  in  fact,  there  were  no  human 
beings  upon   earth  but  righteous  Noah  and  his  family. 

2.  That  they  are  spoken  of  '  man  '  as.  man ;  that  is,  of 
human  nature,  and,  consequently,  of  Noah  himself  and 
the  persons  saved  with  him  in  the  ark.  3.  That  it  is 
affirmed  of  man,  that  is,  of  mankind,  that  the  imagina- 
tion of  the  heart  '  is  evil  from  his  youth.'     Now  the 


214  FALL     OF    MAN. 

term  '  imagination '  includes  the  thoughts,  afFectiong, 
and  inchnations  ;  and  the  word  '  youth  ^  the  whole  time 
from  the  birth,  the  earliest  age  of  man.  This  passage, 
tlierefore,  affirms  the  natural  and  hereditary  tendency 
of  man  to  evil. 

"  The  book  of  Job,  which  embodies  the  patriarchal 
theology,  gives  ample  testimony  to  this  as  the  faith  of 
those  ancient  times.  Job  xi.  12 :  '  Vain  man  would 
be  wise,  though  man  be  born  like  a  wild  ass'  colt ;' 
fierce,  untractable,  and  scarcely  to  be  subjected.  This 
is  the  case  from  his  birth ;  it  is  affirmed  of  man,  and  is 
equally  applicable  to  every  age  ;  it  is  his  natural  condi^- 
tion,  he  is  '  boim,^  literally,  '  the  colt  of  a  wild  ass.^ 

"  '  Man  is  born  unto  trouble  as  the  sparks  fly  upward,' 
Job  V.  7  ;  that  is,  he  is  inevitably  subjected  to  trouble ; 
this  is  the  law  of  his  state  in  this  world,  as  fixed  and 
certain  as  one  of  the  laws  of  nature.  The  proof  from 
this  passage  is  inferential,  but  very  decisive.  Unless 
man  is  bom  a  sinner,  it  is  not  to  be  accounted  for,  that 
he  should  be  born  to  trouble.  Pain  and  death  are  the 
consequences  only  of  sin,  and  absolutely  innocent  be- 
ings must  be  exempt  from  them. 

"  '  Who  can  brino-  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  ?^ 
Job  xiv.  4.  The  word  thing  is  supplied  by  our  trans- 
lators, but  jpei'son  is  evidently  understood.  Cleanness 
and  uncleanness,  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  signify 
holiness  and  sin  ;  and  the  text  clearly  asserts  the  natur- 
al impossibility  of  any  man  being  born  sinless,  because 
he  is  produced  by  guilty  and  defiled  parents. 

"  What  is  man,  that  he  should  l3e  clean  ;  and  he 
which  is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  be  righteous  ?' 
Job  XV.  14.  The  same  doctrine  is  here  affirmed  as  in 
tlie  preceding  text,  only  more  fully,  and  it  may  be  taken 
as  an  explanation  of  the  former,  which  was,  perhaps,  a 
proverbial  expression.  The  rendering  of  the  LXX  is 
here  worthy  of  notice,  for,  though  it  does  not  agree 
with  the  present  Hebrew  text,  it  strongly  marks  the 
sentiments  of  the  ancient  Jews  on  the  point  in  question. 


FALL     OF    MAN.  215 

*  Who  shall  be  clean  from  filth  ?    Not  one  ;  even  though 
his  life  on  earth  he  a  single  day.'' 

Ps.  li.  5 :  '  Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in 
sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me.'  What  possible  sense 
can  be  given  to  this  passage  on  the  hypothesis  of  man's 
natural  innocence  ?  It  is  in  vain  to  render  the  first 
clause  '  I  was  brought  forth  in  iniquity  ;'  for  nothing  is 
gained  by  it.  David  charges  nothing  upon  his  mother, 
of  whom  he  is  not  speaking,  but  of  himself;  he  was 
conceived,  or,  if  it  please  better,  was  born  a  sinner. 
And  if  the  rendering  of  the  latter  clause  were  allowed, 
which  yet  has  no  authority,  '  in  sin  did'  my  mother  nurse 
me  ;'  still  no  progress  is  made  in  getting  quit  of  its  tes- 
timony to  the  moral  corruption  of  children,  for  it  is  the 
child  only  which  is  nursed,  and,  if  that  be  allowed, 
natural  depravity  is  allowed,  depravity  before  reasona- 
ble choice,  which  is  the  point  in  question. 

"  Ps.  Iviii.  3,  4  :  '  The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the 
womb,  they  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  speaking 
lies.'  They  are  alienated  from  the  womb,  '  alienated 
from  the  life  of  God,  from  the  time  of  their  coming  into 
the  world.'  '  Speaking  lies  :'  they  show  a  tendency  to 
speak  lies  as  soon  as  they  are  capable  of  it,  which 
shows  the  existence  of  a  natural  principle  of  falsehood. 
''  Prov.  xxii.  15,  and  xxix.  15  :  '  Foolishness  is  bound 
up  in  the  heart  of  a  child ;  but  the  rod  of  correction 
shall  drive  it  far  from  him.'  '  The  rod  and  reproof  give 
wisdom,  but  a  child  left  to  himself  bringeth  his  mother 
to  shame.'  '  These  passages  put  together  are  a  plain 
testimony  of  the  inbred  corruption  of  young  childxen. 
Foolishness  in  the  former  is  not  barely  appetite  or  a 
want  of  the  knowledge  attainable  by  instruction,  as 
some  have  said.  Neitheir  of  these  deserve  that  sharp 
correction  recommended.  But  it  is  indisposedness  to 
what  is  good,  and  a  strong  propensity  to  evil.  This 
foolishness  is  bound  up  in  the  heart  of  a  child ;  it  is 
rooted  in  his  inmost  nature.  It  is,  as  it  were,  fastened 
to  him  by  strong  cords  j  so  the  original  word  signifies. 


S16  FALL    OF    MAN. 

From  this  corruption  of  the  heart  in  every  child,  it  is 
that  the  rod  of  con-ection  is  necessary  to  give  him  wis- 
dom ;  hence  it  is  that  a  child  left  to  himself,  without  cor- 
rection, brings  his  mother  to  shame.  If  a  child  were 
born  equally  inclined  to  virtue  and  vice,  why  should 
the  w^ise  man  speak  of  foolishness  or  wickedness  as 
fastened  so  closely  to  his  heart  ?  And  why  should  the 
rod  and  reproof  be  so  necessary  for  him  ?  These  texts, 
therefore,  are  another  clear  proof  of  the  corruption  of 
human  nature.' 

"  The  quotation  of  Psalm  xiv.  2,  3,  by  the  Apostle 
Paul,  in  Romans  iii.  10,  &c.,  is  also  an  important  Scrip- 
tural proof  of  the  universal  moral  corruption  of  man- 
kind. 'The  Lord  looked  down  from  heaven  upon  the 
children  of  men,  to  see  if  there  were  any  that  did  un- 
derstand, and  seek  God.  They  are  all  gone  aside, 
they  are  altogether  become  filthy ;  there  is  none  that 
doeth  good,  no,  not  one.'  When  the  Psalmist  affirms 
this  of  the  children  of  men,  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that 
he  is  speaking  of  all  men,  and  of  human  nature  as 
originating  actual  depravity  ;  and  it  is,  indeed,  obvious, 
from  the  context,  that  he  is  thus  accounting  for  atheism 
and  other  evils,  the  prevalence  of  which  he  laments. 
But  as  the  Apostle  quotes  this  passage  and  the  parallel 
one  in  the  53d  Psalm  as  Scriptural  proofs  of  the  uni- 
versal corruption  of  mankind,  the  sense  of  the  Psalmist 
is  fixed  by  his  authority,  and  cannot  be  questioned.  All, 
indeed,  that  the  opponents  of  this  interpretation  can  say, 
is,  that,  in  the  same  psalm  the  Psalmist  speaks  also  of 
righteous  persons,  '  God  is  in  the  generation  of  the 
righteous ;'  but  that  is  nothing  to  the  purpose,  seeing 
that  those  who  contend  for  the  universal  corruption  of 
mankind  allow  also  that  a  remedy  has  been  provided 
for  the  evil ;  and  that  by  its  application  some,  in  every 
age,  have  been  made  righteous,  who  were  originally  and 
naturally  sinful.  In  fact,  it  could  not  be  said,  with  res- 
pect to  men's  actual  moral  conduct  in  that,  or,  probably, 
in  any  age,  that  *  not  one '  was  righteous  j'  but  in  every 


FALL     OF    MAN.  217 

age  it  may  be  said,  that  not  one  is  so  originally,  or  by 
nature ;  so  that  the  passage  is  not  to  be  explained  on 
the  assumption  that  the  inspired  writer  is  speaking  only 
of  the  practice  of  mankind  in  his  own  times. 

''  Of  the  same  kind  are  all  those  passages  which 
speak  of  what  is  morally  evil  as  the  characteristic  and 
distinguishing  mark,  not  of  any  individual,  not  of  any 
particular  people,  living  in  some  one  age  or  part  of  the 
world,  but  of  man,  of  human  nature,  and  especially 
those  which  make  sinfulness  the  natural  state  of  that 
part  of  the  human  race  who  have  not  undergone  that 
moral  renovation  which  is  the  fruit  of  a  Divine  opera- 
tion in  the  heart,  a  work  ascribed  particularly  to  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Of  these  texts  the  number  is  very  great, 
and  it  adds  also  to  the  strength  of  their  evidence,  that 
the  subject  is  often  mentioned  incidentally,  and  by  way 
of  illustration  and  argument  in  support  of  something 
else,  and  must,  therefore,  be  taken  to  be  an  acknow- 
ledged and  settled  opinion  among  the  sacred  writers, 
both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and  one  which 
neither  they  nor  those  to  whom  they  spoke  or  wrote 
questioned  or  disputed. 

"  '  Cursed,'  says  the  Prophet  Jeremiah,  '  is  he  that 
trusteth  in  man.'  Why  in  man  if  he  were  not,  by  na- 
ture, unworthy  of  trust  ?  On  the  scheme  of  man's 
natural  innocence,  it  would  surely  have  been  more  ap- 
propriate to  say.  Cursed  be  he  that  trusteth  indiscrimi- 
nately in  men,  some  of  whom  may  have  become  cor- 
rupt ;  but  here  human  nature  itself,  man,  in  the  abstract, 
is  held  up  to  suspicion  and' caution.  '  The  heart,'  pro- 
ceeds the  same  Prophet,  '  is  deceitful  above  all  things, 
and  desperately  wicked,  who  can  know  it  ?'  which  is 
the  reason  adduced  for  the  caution  preceding  against 
trusting  in  man.  It  is  precisely  in  the  same  way  that 
our  Lord  designates  human  nature,  when  he  affirms, 
that  '  from  within,  out  of  the  heart,  proceed  evil 
thoughts,  adulteries,  murders,  &:c. ;  all  these  things 
come  from  witliin,  and  defile  the  man.'  This  represen- 
19 


218  FALL    OF    MAN. 

tation  would  not  be  true  on  the  scheme  of  natural  inno- 
cence. All  these  things  would  come  from  without,  not 
from  within,  as  their  original  source.  The  heart  must 
first  be  corrupted  by  outward  circumstances,  before  it 
could  be  the  corrupter. 

"  But  to  proceed  with  instances  of  the  more  inciden- 
tal references  to  the  fault  and  disease  of  man's  very  na- 
ture, with  which  the  Scriptures  abound.  '  How  much 
more  abominable  and  filthy  is  man,  who  drinketh  iniqui- 
ty like  water?'  Job  xv.  16.  '  Madness  is  in  the  heart  of 
the  sons  of  men  while  they  live,'  Eccles.  ix.  3.  '  But 
they  like  men  have  transgressed  the  covenant,'  Hos.  vi. 
7.  '  If  ye,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts 
unto  your  children,'  Matt.  vi.  11.  'Thou  savourest 
not  the  things  that  be  of  God  ;  but  the  things  that  be 
of  MEN,'  Matt.  xvi.  23.  'Are  ye  not  carnal,  and  walk 
as  MEN  ?'  1  Cor.  iii.  3.  '  That  he  no  longer  should  live 
the  rest  of  his  time  in  the  lusts  of  men  ;  but  to  the  will 
of  God,'  1  Pet.  iv.  2.  '  We  are  of  God,  and  the 
whole  ivorld  liethin  wickedness,'  1  John  v.  19.  '  Ex- 
cept a  man  he  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom 
of  God,'  John  iii.  8.  '  That  ye  put  off  the  old  man, 
and  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your  mind  ;  and  that  ye 
put  on  the  new  man,'  Eph.  iv.  23 — 24. 

"  The  above  texts  are  to  be  considered  as  specimens 
of  the  manner  in  which  the  sacred  writers  speak  of  the 
subject  rather  than  as  approaching  to  an  enumeration  of 
the  passages  in  which  the  same  sentiments  are  found  in 
great  variety  of  expression,  and  which  are  adduced  on 
various  occasions.  They  are,  however,  sufficient  to 
show  that  man  and  the  heart  of  man,  and  the  moral  na- 
ture of  man,  are  spoken  of  by  them  in  a  way  not  to  be 
reconciled  to  the  notion  of  their  purity,  or  even  their 
indifference  to  good  and  evil.  On  two  parts  of  the  New 
Testament,  however,  which  irresistibly  fix  the  whole  of 
this  evidence  in  favor  of  the  opinion  of  the  universal 
Church  of  Christ,  in  all  ages,  our  remarks  may  be  some- 
what more  extended.     The  first  is  our  Lord's  discourse 


FALL    OF    MAN.  219 

with  Nicodemus,  John  iii.,  in  which  he  declares  the 
necessity  of  a  new  birth,  in  contradistinction  to  our 
natural  birth,  in  order  to  our  entrance  into  the  kingdom 
of  God  ;  and  lays  it  down,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
the  sole  author  of  this  change,  and  that  what  is  born  of 
the  flesh  cannot  alter  its  nature ;  it  is  flesh  still,  and 
must  always  remain  so,  and  in  that  state  is  unfit  for 
heaven.  '  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God ;  that 
which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is 
born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.'  Throughout  the  New  Tes- 
tament, it  will  be  found,  that  when  flesh  and  spirit  are, 
in  a  moral  sense,  opposed  to  each  other,  the  one  means 
the  corrupt  nature  and  habits  of  men,  not  sanctified  by 
the  gospel ;  the  other,  either  the  principle  and  habit  of 
holiness  in  good  men,  or  the  Holy  Spirit  himself,  who 
imparts  and  constantly  nurtures  them.  '  I  know  that  in 
me  (that  is,  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth  no  good  thing,'  Rom. 
vii.  18.  ^  I  myself  with  the  mind  serve  the  law  of 
God  ;  but  with  the  flesh,  the  law  of  sin,'  Rom.  vii.  25. 
'  There  is,  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to  them 
which  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh, 
but  after  the  Spirit,'  Rom.  viii.  1.  *  They  that  are  af- 
ter the  flesh  do  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh  ;  but  they 
that  are  after  the  Spirit  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  For 
to  be  carnaUy  minded  is  death ;  but  to  be  spirituaUy 
minded  is  life  and  peace.  Because  the  carnal  mind  is 
enmity  against  God ;  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of 
God,  neither  indeed  can  be.  So  then  they  that  are  in 
the  flesh  cannot  please  God.  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh, 
but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell 
in  you,'  Rom.  viii.  5 — 9. 

^'  These  passages  from  St.  Paul  serve  to  fix  the 
meaning  of  the  terms  flesh  and  spirit,  as  used  by  the 
Jews,  and  as  they  occur  in  the  discourse  of  our  Lord 
with  Nicodemus ;  and  they  are  so  exactly  parallel  to 
it,  that  they  fully  confirm  the  opinion  of  those  who  un- 
derstaud  our  Lord  as  expressly  asserting  that  man  is  by 


220  FALL     or    MAN. 

nature  corrupt  and  sinful,  and  unfit,  in  consequence,  for 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  and  that  all  amendment  of  his 
case  must  result,  not  from  himself,  so  totally  is  he  gone 
from  original  righteousness,  but  from  that  special  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  produces  a  new  birth  or 
regeneration.  Both  assert  the  natural  state  of  man  to 
be  fleshly,  that  is,  morally  corrupt ;  both  assert  that  in 
man  himself  there  is  no  remedy  ;  and  both  attribute 
principles  of  holiness  to  a  supernatural  agency,  the 
agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God  himself. . 

"  No  criticism  can  make  this  language  consistent  with 
the  theory  of  natural  innocence.  St.  Paul  describes 
the  state  of  man,  before  he  comes  under  the  quickening 
and  renewing  influence  of  the  Spirit,  as  being  '  in  the 
flesh  ;'  in  which  state  '  he  cannot  please  God  ;'  as  hav- 
ing a  '  carnal  mind,'  which  '  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  sub- 
ject to  the  law  of  God.'  Our  Lord,  in  like  manner, 
describes  this  state  of  '  the  flesh,'  this  condition  of  entire 
unfitness  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  our  natural 
3tate ;  and,  to  make  this  the  stronger,  he  refers  this  un- 
fitness for  heaven,  not  to  our  acquired  habits,  but  to  the 
state  in  which  we  are  born :  for  the  very  reason  which 
he  gives  for  the  necessity  of  a  new  birth  is,  that  '  that 
which  is  horn  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,'  and,  therefore,  we 
^must  be  horn  again.''  To  interpret,  therefore,  the 
phrase,  '  to  be  flesh,  as  being  born  of  the  flesh,'  merely 
to  signify  that  we  are,  by  natural  birth,  endowed  with 
the  physical  powers  of  human  nature,  is  utterly  absurd  ; 
for  what,  then,  is  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit  ?  Is  it  to 
receive  physical  powers  which  do  not  belong  to  human 
nature  ?  Or,  if  they  go  a  step  further,  and  admit,  that 
^to  be  flesh,  or  being  born  of  the  flesh,'  means  to  be  frail 
and  mortal  like  our  parents  ;  still  the  interpretation  is  a 
physical  and  not  a  moral  one,  and  leads  to  this  absurdi- 
ty, that  we  must  interpret  the  being  born  of  the  Spirit 
physically,  and  not  morally,  likewise.  Now,  since  the 
being  bom  of  the  Spirit  refers  to  a  change  which  is 
effected  in  time^  and  not  at  the  resurrection,  because  our 


FALL     OF    MAN  221 

Lord  speaks  of  being  '  bom  of  water '  as  well  as  the 
Spirit,  by  which  he  means  baptism  ;  and,  as  St.  Paul 
says  to  the  Romans,  in  the  passage  above  quoted,  'ye 
are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit ;'  and,  therefore, 
speaks  of  their  present  experience  in  this  world,  it  may 
be  asked,  what  physical  chdiUge  did  in  reality  take  place 
in  them  in  consequence  of  being  '  born  of  the  Spirit?' 
On  all  hands  it  is  allowed,  that  none  took  place  ;  that 
they  remained  '  frail  and  mortal '  still ;  and  it  follows, 
therefore,  that  it  is  a  moral  and  not  a  physical  change 
which  is  spoken  of,  both  by  our  Lord  and  by  the  Apos- 
tle ;  and,  if  a  moral  change  from  sin  to  holiness,  then  is 
the  natural  state  of  man  from  his  birth,  and  in  conse- 
quence of  his  birth,  sinful  and  corrupt. 

''  The  other  passage  is  the  argument  in  the  third  chap- 
ter of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  in  which  the  Apostle 
'proves  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  under  sin,  that  every 
mouth  may  be  stopped,  and  all  the  ivorld  may  become 
guilty  before  God  ;'  and  then  proposes  the  means  of 
salvation  by  faith  in  Christ,  on  the  express  ground  that 
'  all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God.' 
Whoever  reads  that  argument,  and  considers  the  uni- 
versality of  the  terms  used,  all,  every,  all  the 
WORLD,  BOTH  Jews  AND  Gentiles,  must  concludc,  in 
all  fairness  of  interpretation,  that  the  whole  human  race, 
of  every  age,  is  intended.  But,  if  any  will  construe 
his  words  partially,  then  he  is  placed  in  the  following 
dilemma  : — The  Apostle  grounds  the  wisdom  and  mer- 
cy of  that  provision  which  is  made  for  man's  salvation 
in  the  gospel  upon  man's  sinfulness,  danger,  and  help- 
lessness. Now  the  gospel  as  a  remedy  for  disease,  as 
salvation  from  danger,  is  designed  for  all  men,  or  but  for 
a  part ;  if  for  all,  then  all  are  diseased  and  in  danger ; 
if  but  for  a  part,  then  the  undiseased  part  of  the  human 
race,  those  who  are  in  no  danger,  have  no  interest  in 
the  gospel ;  it  is  not  adapted  to  their  case  ;  and  not  only 
is  the  argument  of  the  Apostle  lost,  but  those  who  ad- 
vocate this  notion  must  explain  how  it  is  that  our  Lord 
19* 


^22  FALL   OF    MAl?r. 

himself  commanded  the  gospel  to  be  preached  '  to  every 
creature,^  if  but  a  part  of  mankind  needs  its  salvation. 
—  Watson. 

"  The  doctrine,  then,  of  Scripture  is,  I  think,  clear- 
ly established  to  be,  that  of  the  natural  and  universal 
corruption  of  man's  nature  ;"  but  before  we  dismiss  this 
subject  we  shall  endeavor  to  answer  some  of  the  objec- 
tions urged  against  the  doctrine  of  hereditary  depravity.. 

I.  It  is  said  to  be  impossible  for  man  to  be  born  in 
sin,  for  sin  is  the  abuse  of  one's  powers. 

"  To  this  we  answer  : — The  Scriptures  uniformly  as- 
sert, that  man  is  '  shapen  in  iniquity,'  and  '  conceived 
in  sin  ;'  that  '  man  cannot  be  clean  who  is  born  of  a 
woman ;'  and  that  '  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh,'  and  needs  to  '  be  born  of  the  Spirit '  before  it 
can  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  To  contradict  this 
statement  is,  therefore,  to  contradict  the  plainest  asser- 
tions of  Scripture. 

"  This  objection  makes  no  distinction  between  a 
wrong  choice  and  a  wrong  disposition ;  between  the 
wrong  state  and  the  wrong  use  of  our  powers.  That 
man  cannot  be  born  with  any  thing  which  implies  a 
wrong  choice  already  made  is  obvious.  Perhaps  it 
will  be  granted  that  we  have  no  innate  ideas,  and,  there- 
fore, as  principles  are  compounded  of  ideas,  that  we 
have  no  innate  moral  principles.  But  may  there  not 
be  a  disorder  of  the  faculties  before  those  faculties  are 
called  into  action  ?  We  easily  grant  the  possibility  of 
the  birth  of  a  human  body  disordered  in  any  of  its 
senses  or  members,  or  in  all  of  them.  A  human  body 
may  be  born  blind,  or  deaf,  or  dumb,  or  maimed,  or 
lame.  Again  :  A  man  may  be  born  with  a  false  taste, 
which  exists  before  either  food  or  poison  has  been  pre- 
sented to  him  ;  and,  therefere,  before  his  taste  has  been 
vitiated  by  the  use  of  poison.  Now,  where  is  the  im- 
possibility of  the  mental  powers  being  produced  in  dis- 
order ?  Why  must  they  of  necessity  be  in  proper  order 
and  harmony  ?     Why  is   it   impossible  that  the  under- 


FALL     OF    MAN.  223 

Standing  should  be  naturally  blind,  and  the  passions 
headstrong  ?  What  reason  is  to  be  assigned  in  proof 
that  the  taste  (shall  we  call  it)  cannot  be  naturally 
false,  and  give  a  wrong  bias  to  the  subsequent  choice  ?" 
— Hare. 

2.  It  is  objected  that  this  doctrine  of  hereditiiry  de- 
pravity makes  God  the  author  of  sin  ;  for  it  is  said  that 
the  proper  production  of  the  child  is  from  God  ;  and  if 
God  produce  a  child  which  has  sinful  dispositions,  he 
must  produce  those  dispositions. 

''  This  argument  proves  too  much.  It  would  prove 
God  to  be  the  author  of  all  actual,  as  well  as  original 
(or  hereditary)  sin.  For  it  is  the  power  of  God,  under 
certain  laws  and  established  rules,  which  produces  not 
only  the  foetus,  but  all  the  motion  in  the  universe.  It 
is  his  power  which  so  violently  expands  the  air  on  the 
discharge  of  a  pistol  or  cannon.  It  is  the  same  which 
produces  muscular  motion,  and  the  circulation  of  all  the 
juices  in  man.  But  does  he  therefore  produce  adultery, 
or  murder  ?  Is  he  the  cause  of  those  sinful  motions  ? 
He  is  the  cause  of  the  motion,  (as  he  is  of  the  foetus,) 
of  the  sin  he  is  not.  Do  not  say  this  is  too  fine  a  dis- 
tinction. Fine  as  it  is,  you  must  necessarily  allow  it. 
Otherwise  you  make  God  the  direct  author  of  all  the 
sin  under  heaven.  To  apply  this  more  directly  to  the 
point.  God  do3s  produce  the  foetus  of  man  as  he  does 
of  trees^  empowering  the  one  and  the  other  to  propa- 
gate each  after  its  kind.  And  a  sinful  man  propagates, 
after  his  kind,  another  sinful  man.  Yet  God  produces, 
in  the  sense  above  mentioned,  the  man,  but  not  the 
sin." — (Mr.  J.  Wesley  on  Original  Sin.) 

3.  This  doctrine  is  said  to  apologise  for  the  actual 
wretchedness  of  mankind  ;  for  if  men  are  naturally  dis- 
posed to  sin,  they  cannot  be  justly  blamed  for  sinning. 

"  That  the  natural  depravity  of  the  human  soul  is 
unavoidable,  we  grant ;  but  not  that  the  personal 
wickedness  of  every  man  is  unavoidable.  Nothing  but 
universal  depravity  can  account  for  universal  wicked- 


224  FALL     OF    MAN. 

ness  ;  and  universal  wickedness  would  be  the  necessary 
consequence  of  universal  depravity,  if  there  were  no 
cure  for  it.  But  '  the  grace  of  God,  which  bringeth 
salvation,  hath  appeared  unto  all  men,  teaching  them 
that  denying  (renouncing)  ungodliness  and  worldly 
lusts,  they  should  live  soberly,  and  righteously,  and  god- 
ly, in  this  present  world  ;  looking  for  that  blessed  hope, 
and  the  glorious  appearing  of  our  great  God  and  Sa- 
viour, Jesus  Christ ;  who  gave  himself  for  us,  that  he 
might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  him- 
self a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works,'  Titus  ii. 
11 — 13.  Under  these  circumstances,  mankind  are 
placed  in  a  state  of  personal  probation  :  with  this  differ- 
ence, however;  Adam  was  created  upright,  and  was 
proved  whether  he  would  fall  ;  we  are  born  prone,  and, 
under  a  remediate  law,  are  proved  whether  we  will  rise. 
He  sinned  voluntarily  against  the  law  of  innocence  ; 
we  sin  voluntarily  against  the  law  of  grace.  He  sinned 
and  induced  the  disorder ;  we  sin  partly  by  neglecting 
the  remedy,  and  partly  in  consequence  of  that  neglect. 
Our  disease  is  unavoidable ;  but  not  so  our  neglect  of 
the  cure." — Hare. 

4.  It  is  objected  that  this  doctrine  renders  it  impossi- 
ble for  those  who  die  in  infancy  to  be  saved.  But 
"  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  between  the  ruin  and  de- 
pravity of  infants  by  the  sin  of  their  parents,  and  their 
being  finally  saved  by  Jesus  Christ.  '  If  by  the  offence 
of  one,  judgment  came  upon  them  to  condemnation  ; 
so,  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  comes  upon 
them  unto  justification  of  life.'  However  necessary  it 
may  be  that  they  who,  by  personal  sin,  have  confirmed 
the  original  sentence  of  condemnation,  should  seek  and 
accept  a  personal  interest  in  Christ,  it  cannot  be  neces- 
sary for  those  who  have  committed  no  personal  sin,  and 
who  have  never  been  capable  of  a  personal  application 
of  the  merit  of  the  Saviour.  As  to  their  participation 
of  human  depravity,  they  have  never,  by  an  unholy 
choice  or  deed,  given  themselves  up  to  its  government ; 


ATONEMENT.  225 

and,  therefore,  dying  in  personal  innocence,  they  may 
be  renewed  by  an  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
does  not  require,  as  in  the  case  of  adults,  their  personal 
co-operation.  Their  ruin  has  been  effected  widiout 
their  personal  fault ;  and  their  recovery  is  effected  with- 
out their  personal  choice. 

''  As  the  depravity  and  ruin  of  mankind  are  clearly 
and  decisively  demonstrated,  in  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
to  be  the  natural  and  judicial  consequences  of  the  sin 
of  their  first  parents,  the  whole  Unitarian  system  must 
fall  to  the  ground.  The  rational  divines  must  relinquish 
their  confidence  in  the  infallibility  of  human  reason  ; 
grant  that  a  Divine  Redeemer  and  Restorer  is  neces- 
sary ;  submit  to  the  doctrine  of  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  ; 
and  acknowledge  their  want  of  a  supernatural  influence 
on  their  minds  and  hearts,  in  order  to  their  salvation. 
They  must  renounce  their  boasts  of  the  moral  dignity 
of  human  nature ;  rank  themselves  with  publicans  and 
sinners  ;  and  condescend  to  be  saved  by  grace.  Nor 
will  they  hereby  lose  any  thing  but  their  unreasonable 
prejudices  and  their  destructive  sins." — Hare. 


CHAPTER  VHI. 

THE   ATONEMENT  MADE  BY  CHRIST. 

Having  shown  in  the  last  chapter  that  man  is  a  sin- 
ner by  nature  as  well  as  by  practice,  or,  in  other  words, 
that  he  is  a  guilty  rebel  in  the  sight  of  a  holy  God,  we 
shall  now  endeavor  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  a  vicari- 
ous atonement,  or,  that  Jesus  Christ  has  suffered  in  our 
stead,  being  made  a  curse  for  us,  that  we  might  escape 
the  curse  of  the  violated  yet  inflexible  law  of  God. 
This  is  a  doctrine  which  is  denied  by  all  classes  of  Uni- 
tarians, as  may  be  seen  by  turning  to  the  quotation  made 
from  Mr.  Yates,  on  page  16,  where,  after  enumerating 


226  ATONEMENT. 

the  points  on  which  Unitarians  differ,  he  definitely 
states  that  all  Unitarians  agree  "  in  rejecting  the  doc- 
trine of  satisfaction  and  vicarious  atonement."  Mr. 
Grundy  says  :  "  This  doctrine  converts  justice  into  ven- 
geance. It  first  plunges  its  sword  into  the  soul  of  the 
innocent ;  it  afterward  pursues  multitudes  of  those 
whose  punishment  he  bore,  and  relentlessly  plunges 
them  into  the  flames  of  hell,  because  they  cannot  satis- 
fy its  demands,  which  were  all  satisfied  by  his  suffering 
in  their  stead."  The  same  sentiment  is  held,  and  the 
same  language  used,  in  substance,  by  those  Unitarians 
who  call  themselves  Christians,  some  of  whom  have 
exclaimed,  "What !  wash  in  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  It 
would  render  your  garment  filthy.  It  was  rotten 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago  !"  And  one  of  their  preach- 
ers (the  Rev.  Mr.  Sanford,)  told  the  writer,  in  refer- 
ence to  this  work,  that  he  need  have  no  fears  in  setting 
it  down  as  the  faith  of  their  Church,  that  they  denied 
the  doctrine  of  Vicarious  Atonement.  This  doctrine, 
then,  being  generally  denied  by  our  opponents,  we  shall 
now  endeavor  to  establish  its  truth,  which  we  might 
forcibly  argue  from  the  necessity  of  there  being  such  a 
provision  made  for  the  redemption  of  man,  without 
which  salvation  could  never  have  been  offered  to  a  lost 
and  ruined  world  ;  but  having  extended  our  remarks  on 
other  subjects,  beyond  our  intended  limits,  we  must 
necessarily  be  more  brief  upon  this  important  subject 
than  we  otherwise  should  be.  We  shall,  therefore,  ap- 
peal directly  to  the  express  testimony  of  scripture,  at 
the  same  time  requesting  the  reader,  who  would  see  a 
more  extensive  investigation  of  the  subject,  to  refer  to 
an  excellent  work  recently  published  by  the  Rev. 
Luther  Lee,  entitled  ''  Universalism  Examined,"  in 
which  this  subject  is  more  largely  discussed,  and  from 
which  some  of  the  following  arguments  are  extracted. 
But  to  proceed  — 

1.  We  argue  this  doctrine   from  the  fact  that  the 
^'  scriptures  teach,  directly,  that  the  sufferings  and  death 


ATONEMENT.  227 

of  Jesus  Christ,  were  in  the  place  of  the  punishment 
which  was  due  to  sinners  ;  he  suffering  in  their  stead, 
bearing  the  punishment  which  they  otherwise  must  have 
borne,  and  from  which  they,  consequently,  may  now 
be  delivered  on  gospel  terms.  By  this,  however,  we 
do  not  mean  that  Christ  suffered  the  same  in  kind  and 
degree  that  sinners  would  have  suffered,  but  simply  that 
what  he  suffered  was  a  substitute  for  what  they  must 
have  suffered  without  the  atonement.  Isa.  liii.  5,  6,  8, 
11,  12.  '  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he 
was  bruised  for  our  iniquities,  the  chastisement  of  our 
peace  was  upon  him,  and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed. 
The  Lord  hath  laid  upon  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all ;  for 
the  transgression  of  my  people  was  he  stricken.  He 
shall  bear  their  iniquities,  and  he  bore  the  sin  of  many 
and  made  intercession  for  the  transgressors.' 

"  That  this  whole  chapter  relates  to  Jesus  Christ 
there  is  no  doubt,  and  if  it  does  not  teach  that  he  suf- 
fered for  sinners,  bearing  a  punishment  for  their  sins,  it 
is  because  the  sentiment  cannot  be  couched  in  the  Ens- 
lish  language.  Why  was  he  wounded  for  our  trans- 
gressions and  bruised  for  our  iniquities,  if  it  was  not  to 
save  us  from  being  thus  wounded  and  bruised  ?  It  is 
worthy  of  remark,  that  in  this  interesting  chapter, 
Christ  is  represented  as  suffering  for  us  by  divine  ap- 
pointment, and  under  the  divine  sanction :  '  the  Lord 
hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all ' — '  when  thou 
shalt  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin.'  Now,  if  it  was 
not  the  divine  purpose  to  save  us  from  the  punishment 
our  sins  deserve  by  laying  our  iniquities  on  Jesus  Christ, 
and  making  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin  ;  if  after  all  this, 
we  must  inevitably  suffer  all  that  our  sins  deserve,  then 
what  Christ  suffered  for  us  must  have  been  over  and 
above  what  justice  requires,  and,  consequently,  unjust 
and  cruel." — Lee, 

In  addition  to  this,  we  would  remark,  that  if  the 
chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  the  Saviour,  he 
must  have  suffered  in  our  stead  for,  as  Mr.  Watson 


228  ATONEMENT. 

very  justly  remarks,  "  chastisement  is  the  punishment 
of  a  fault ;  but  the  suffering  person,  of  whom  the  Pro- 
phet speaks,  is  declared  by  him  to  be  wholly  free  from 
transgression ;  to  be  perfectly  and  emphatically  inno- 
cent. This  prophecy  is  applied  to  Christ  by  the  Apos- 
tles, whose  constant  doctrine  is  the  entire  immaculate- 
ness  of  their  Master  and  Lord.  If  chastisement, 
therefore,  was  laid  upon  Christ,  it  could  not  be  on  ac- 
count of  faults  of  his  own  ;  his  sufferings  were  the 
chastisement  of  our  faults,  the  price  of  our  peace,  and 
his  ^  stripes '  were  borne  by  him  for  our  '  healing.' 
Again,  our  iniquities,  that  is,  according  to  the  Hebrew 
mode  of  speaking,  their  punishment,  are  made  to  meet 
upon  him  ;  they  are. fixed  together  and  laid  upon  him  ; 
the  penalty  is  exacted  from  him,  though  he  himself  had 
incurred  no  penalty  personally,  and,  therefore,  it  was 
in  consequence  of  that  vicarious  exaction  that  he  was 
'  afflicted,'  was  '  made  answerable,'  and,  voluntarily  sub- 
mitting, 'he  opened  not  his  mouth." — "These  pas- 
sages, therefore,  prove  a  substitution^  a  suffering  in  our 
stead.  The  chastisement  of  offences  was  laid  upon 
him,  in  order  to  our  peace  ;  and  the  offences  w  ere  ours, 
since  they  could  not  be  his  '  who  did  no  sin,  neither 
was  guile  found  in  his  mouth.'  " — Watson. 

"  But  we  recollect  of  having  seen  an  attempt  made 
by"  Unitarians  "to  evade  the  force  of  the  above  quota- 
tions from  the  Prophet.  It  has  been  said  that  this  pro- 
phecy was  fulfilled  in  the  miracles  which  Christ  wrought 
for  the  relief  of  the  afflicted  ;  in  proof  of  which  they 
quote  Matt.  viii.  16,  17  :  '  He  healed  all  that  were  sick, 
that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  Esaias  the 
prophet  saying,  himself  took  our  infirmities  and  bare 
our  sicknesses.'  That  this  is  a  quotation  from  the  same 
chapter,  we  admit,  but  it  is  not  a  quotation  from  any 
portion  which  we  have  quoted,  or  on  which  we  rely  as 
proof  of  the  point  in  question,  but  is  borrowed  from  the 
fourth  verse,  which  reads  thus :  '  Surely  he  hath  borne 
our  griefs  and  carried  our  sorrows.'      These  are  the 


ATONEMENT.  229 

words  which  the  Evangehst  appHes  to  Christ's  heaHng 
the  sick,  which  can  furnish  no  ground  for  making  the 
same  application  of  the  whole  chapter,  some  of  which 
most  clearly  refers  to  his  death  and  not  to  the  works  of 
benevolence  which  he  performed  during  his  ministry. 
There  is  a  vast  difference  between  his  bearing  our  grief 
and  carrying  our  sorrows,  or  as  the  Evangelist  renders 
it,  '  taking  our  infirmities  and  bearing  our  sicknesses, 
and  being  wounded  for  our  transgressions,'  and  '  bruised 
for  our  iniquities  ;'  or  being  '  numbered  with  the  trans- 
gressors,' and  bearing  '  the  sin  of  many.'  But  this 
question  is  settled  by  the  fact  that  two  other  Evangelists 
quote  from  the  same  subject  and  apply  it  to  his  cruci- 
6xion.  Mark  xv.  27,  28  :  'And  with  him  they  crucify 
two  thieves  ;  the  one  on  his  right  hand,  and  the  other 
on  his  left ;  and  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled  which  saith, 
and  he  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors.'  This  is 
a  quotation  from  the  12th,  which  reads  thus  :  '  He  hath 
poured  out  his  soul  unto  death,  and  he  was  numbered 
with  the  transgressors,  and  he  bare  the  sin  of  many.' 
Luke  xxxii.  37 :  'And  he  was  reckoned  among  the 
transgressors.'  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  Prophet  de- 
scribes the  death,  as  well  as  the  life  of  our  blessed 
Lord,  and  forcibly  points  it  out  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin. 

''  In  the  above  position  we  are,  if  possible,  more 
amply  sustained  by  the  Apostles  in  the  New  Testament, 
who  express  the  same  sentiment,  in  nearly  the  same 
language,  evidently  borrowing  their  descriptions  from 
the  above  paintings  of  the  prophetic  pencil. 

"  1  Cor.  XV.  3 :  '  For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of 
all,  that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for 
our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures.'  Several  points  in 
this  text  deserve  notice. 

1.  "The  substance  of  the  Apostle's  declaration  is, 
'  Christ  died  for  our  sins.' 

2.  ''  This  doctrine  of  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ, 
he  declares  he  received :  '  I  delivered  unto  you  that 
which  I  also  received.'     It  was  not  a  thought  of  his 

20 


230  ATONEMENT. 

own,  nor  the  invention  of  man,  but  he  received  it  from 
God,  who  called  him  to  preach  Christ  crucified. 

3.  "  This  doctrine  of  Christ's  death  for  our  sins,  he 
says,  he  '  delivered  unto  them  first  of  all,'  showing  that 
he  considered  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  vicarious  death 
one  of  the  first  principles  of  the  gospel,  of  the  first  im- 
portance, on  which  the  sinner's  hope  rests,  and  upon 
which  the  whole  gospel  fabric  is  reared. 

4.  "This  doctrine  of  Christ's  death  for  our  sins,  he 
declares,  is  '  according  to  the  Scriptures.' 

'''  Let  it  be  understood  that  by  the  Scriptures  here, 
the  Old  Testament  only  can  be  intended,  and  what  we 
have  said  on  this  subject,  reasoning  from  the  law  and 
the  Prophets,  is  confirmed.  As  the  Apostle  declares 
that  Christ's  death  for  our  sins  was  according  to  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  follows  that  the  sin 
offerings  made  under  the  law  were  representations  of 
his  death,  and  pointed  him  out  as  suffering  for  sinners  ; 
and  that  the  Prophet,  in  foretelling  his  passion,  referred 
to  the  same  object  of  his  death,  saying,  '  When  thou 
shalt  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin  he  shall  see  his 
seed,'  &:c. 

1  Pet.  ii.  24,  25 :  '  Who  his  ownself  bare  our  sins, 
in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,  by  whose  stripes  ye  are 
healed ;  for  ye  were  as  sheep  going  astray.'  This  is 
almost  a  literal  quotation  from  the  Prophet,  whose 
words  we  have  already  considered,  and  goes  farther  to 
show  that  we  are  sustained  by  the  New  Testament  wri- 
ters, in  our  application  of  the  Prophet's  language  to  the 
death  of  Christ,  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  The  Apostle 
here  is  so  plain  and  precise  that  it  seems  hardly  possible 
to  misunderstand  or  misapply  his  language. 

1.  "  He  states  that  Christ  bore  our  sins. 

2.  "  To  show,  beyond  all  dispute,  that  he  bore  them 
literally,  and  not  in  some  symbolical  or  allegorical  man- 
ner, he  notes  the  manner  in  which  he  bore  them,  in 
three  particulars  :  First,  he  bore  them  '  his  own  self.' 


ATONEMENT.  23 1 

Secondly,  he  bore  them  ^  in  his  own  body.'  Thirdly, 
he  bore  them  '  on  the  tree,'  i.  e.,  on  the  cross. 

3.  *'  Lest  some  skeptic  should  still  question  the  mer- 
itorious character  of  Christ's  sufferings  the  Apostle  adds 
'  by  his  stripes  ye  are  healed.' 

"  Rom.  iv.  25  :  '  Who  was  delivered  for  our  offen- 
ces and  raised  again  for  our  justification.'  Here  the 
Apostle  clearly  asserts  Christ's  death  for  sinners,  and 
their  deliverance  or  salvation  from  the  guilt  of  sin  by 
his  resurrection  ;  i.  e.,  he  died  to  atone  for  our  sins,  and 
rose  again  to  intercede  for  us,  by  pleading  the  merits  of 
his  death ;  we,  therefore,  may  be  justified,  i.  e.,  saved 
from  the  guilt  and  consequently  the  punishment  of  sin, 
through  his  resurrection. 

"  2  Cor.  V.  21  :  '  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin 
for  us  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  him.'  On  this  text  it  may  be 
remarked, 

1.  "  By  Christ's  being  made  sin  for  us,  we  are  to  un- 
derstand that  he  was  made  a  sin  offering  for  us,  or  an 
offering  for  our  sin. 

2.  "■  The  design  of  this  was  that  we  might  be  made 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,  by  which  we  under- 
stand, being  made  the  partakers  of  God's  justifying  and 
renewing  grace,  whereby  we  are  rendered  righteous. 
This  is  termed  the  righteousness  of  God,  because  the 
pardon  of  sin  on  the  ground  of  the  sin  offering  of  Christ, 
whereby  we  are  justified  from  sins  that  are  past,  is  the 
prerogative  and  act  of  God,  and  because  the  internal 
work  of  renewing  the  heart  and  sanctifying  the  soul, 
whereby  we  are  rendered  righteous  in  heart  and  life,  is 
the  work  of  God's  Holy  Spirit." — Lee. 

"  The  Socinian  Improved  Version  has  a  note  on  this 
passage  so  obscure  that  the  point  is  evidently  given  up 
in  despair.  Socinus  before  had  attempted  an  elusive 
interpretation,  which  requires  scarcely  an  effort  to  refute. 
By  Christ's  being  made  '  sin,'  he  would  understand  be- 
ing esteemed  a  sinner  by  men.     But,  as  Grotius  ob* 


232  ATONEMENT. 

serves,  neither  is  the  Greek  word,  translated  sin,  nor  the 
Hebrew  word  answering  to  it,  ever  taken  in  such  a  sense. 
Besides,  the  Apostle  has  attributed  this  act  to  God ;  it 
was  he  who  made  him  to  be  sin  ;  but  he  certainly  did 
not  cause  the  Jews  and  others  to  esteem  Christ  a  wicked 
man.  On  the  contrary,  by  a  voice  from  heaven,  and  by 
miracles,  he  did  all  that  was  proper  to  prove  to  all  men 
his  innocence.  Farther,  St.  Paul  places  *  sin '  and 
'  righteousness  '  in  opposition  to  each  other — '  we  are 
made  the  righteousness  of  God,'  that  is,  are  justified 
and  freed  from  Divine  punishment ;  but  in  order  to  this, 
Christ  was  '  made  sin,'  or  bore  our  punishment.  There 
is  also  another  antithesis  in  the  Apostle's  words — God 
made  him  who  knew  no  sin,  and  consequently  deserved 
no  punishment,  to  be  sin  ;  that  is,  it  pleased  him  that 
he  should  be  punished  ;  but  Christ  was  innocent,  not 
only  according  to  human  laws,  but  according  to  the  law 
of  God  ;  the  antithesis,  therefore,  requires  us  to  under- 
stand that  he  bore  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  that  he 
bore  it  in  our  stead." — Watson. 

"  1  Pet.  iii.  18  :  ^  For  Christ  also  hath  once  suffered 
for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us 
to  God,  being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh  but  quickened 
by  the  Spirit.' 

1.  "  This  text  declares  that  Christ  suffered  for  sins. 

2.  "  It  was  was  not  his  own  sins  for  which  he  suffer- 
ed, for  he  was  without  sin,  but  he  suffered  '  the  just  for 
the  unjust,'  his  sufferings  were,  therefore,  vicarious. 

3.  "  The  object  of  his  sufferings  was  that  he  might 
bring  us  to  God ;  his  sufferings,  therefore,  must  have 
been  necessary  in  order  to  our  salvation. 

4.  "  To  show  that  the  salvation  of  sinners  depends 
upon  the  merits  of  Christ's  death,  and  not  upon  the  in- 
fluence of  his  example  and  truth,  revealed  in  his  gospel 
aside  from  his  death,  the  Apostle  refers  the  whole  to 
his  passion  :  '  He  suffered  for  sin,  that  he  might  bring 
us  to  God,  being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh.' 

"  Heb,  ix.  28  :  'So  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear 


ATONEMENT.  233 

the  sins  of  many.^  Chapter  ii.  9  :  '  But  we  see  Jesus, 
&c.,  '  that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste  death 
for  every  man.^  This  class  of  texts  might  be  multiplied 
to  almost  any  extent,  but  it  is  unnecessary  to  add, 
enough  iias  been  produced  to  show,  beyond  dispute, 
that  Christ  did  suffer  for  sinners,  and  that  he  suffered 
and  died  by  Divine  appointment  on  the  part  of  the 
Father,  and  as  a  free-will  offering  on  his  own  part. 
The  death  of  Christ,  then,  must  have  been  an  atone- 
ment for  sinners,  essential  to  their  salvation,  or  it  would 
never  have  been  voluntarily  endured  by  himself  or  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Father." — Lee. 

II.  "  The  death  of  Christ  is  expressly  represented  in 
the  New  Testament  as  penal,  which  it  could  not  be  in 
any  other  way  than  by  his  taking  our  place,  and  suffer 
ing  in  our  stead.  This  is  manifest  from  Gallatians  iii. 
13  :  '  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law,  being  made  a  curse  [an  execration]  for  us,  for  it  is 
written.  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree.' 
The  passage  in  Moses,  to  which  Paul  refers,  is  Deut. 
xxi.  22,  23  :  *  If  a  man  have  committed  a  sin  worthy 
of  death,  and  be  put  to  death,  and  they  hang  him  on  a 
tree,  his  body  shall  not  remain  all  night  upon  the  tree, 
but  thou  shalt  in  any  wise  bury  him  that  day,  for  he 
that  is  hanged  is  accursed  of  God,  that  thy  land  be  not 
defiled.'  This  infamy  was  only  inflicted  upon  great 
offenders,  and  was  designed  to  show  the  light  in  which 
the  person  thus  exposed  was  viewed  by  God — he  was  a 
curse  or  execration.  On  this  the  remarks  of  Grotius 
are  most  forcible  and  conclusive. — '  Socinus  says,  that 
to  be  an  execration  means  to  be  under  the  punishment 
of  execration,  which  is  true.  For  cursed  every  where 
denotes  punishment  proceeding  from  the  sanction  of 
law:  2  Pet.  ii.  14  ;  Mark  xxv.  41.  Socinus  also  ad- 
mits that  the  cross  of  Christ  was  this  curse  ;  his  cross, 
therefore,  had  the  nature  of  punishment,  which  is  what 
we  maintain.  Perhaps  Socinus  allows  that  the  cross 
of  Christ  was  a  punishment,  because  Pilate,  as  a  judge, 
20* 


234  ATONEMENT. 

inflicted  it ;  but  this  does  not  come  up  to  the  intention 
of  the  Apostle ;  for,  in  order  to  prove  that  Christ  was 
made  obnoxious  to  punishment,  he  cites  Moses,  who 
expressly  asserts,  that  whoever  hangs  on  a  tree,  accord- 
ing to  the  Divine  law,  is  accursed  of  God, — conse- 
quently, in  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  who  cites  this 
place  of  Moses,  and  refers  it  to  Christ,  we  must  supply 
the  same  circumstance,  accursed  of  God,  as  if  it  had 
said  Christ  was  made  accursed  of  God,  or  obnoxious  to 
the  highest  and  most  ignominious  punishment  for  us,  that 
the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  upon  the  Gentiles, 
&c.  For  when  the  Apostles  speak  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  in  reference  to  our  good,  they  do  not  regard  the 
acts  of  men  in  them,  but  the  act  of  God.'  " 

III.  This  doctrine  may  also  be  argued  from  those 
passages  of  Holy  Scripture  which  represent  the  death 
of  Christ  as  a  propitiation  for  our  sins.  For,  "  to  pro- 
pitiate is  to  appease,  to  atone,  to  turn  away  the  wrath 
of  an  offended  person.  In  the  case  before  us,  the 
wrath  turned  away  is  the  wrath  of  God  ;  the  person 
making  the  propitiation  is  Christ ;  the  propitiating  offer- 
ing or  sacrifice  is  his  blood.  All  this  is  expressed  in 
most  explicit  terms  in  the  following  passages :  1  John 
ii.  2  :  'And  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins.'  1  John 
iv.  10:  '  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God  ;  but 
that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation 
for  our  sins  .'  Rom.  iii.  25 :  '  Whom  God  hath  set 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  bloody 

Unitarians  have  no  way  of  evading  the  force  of  these 
passages,  but  by  denying  the  existence  of  wrath  in  God. 
This  they  do  in  hopes  "  of  proving  that  propitiation,  in 
a  proper  sense,  cannot  be  the  doctrine  of  Scripture, 
whatever  may  be  the  force  of  the  terms  which  the  sa- 
cred writers  employ.  In  order  to  give  plausibility  to 
their  statement,  they  pervert  and  caricature  the  opinion 
of  the  orthodox,  and  argue  as  though  it  formed  a  part 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  propitiation  and  oblation  for 
sin,  that  God  is  naturally  an  implacable  and  vengeful 


ATONEMENT.  235 

being,  only  made  placable  and  disposed  to  show  mercy 
by  satisfaction  being  made  to  his  displeasure  through 
our  Lord's  sufferings  and  death.  This  is  as  contrary  to 
Scripture  as  it  is  to  the  opinions  of  all  soher  persons 
who  hold  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  atonement.  God  is 
Love ;  but  it  is  not  necessary,  in  order  to  support  this 
truth,  to  assume  that  he  is  nothing  else.  He  has,  as 
we  have  seen  other  attributes,  which  harmonize  with 
this  and  with  each  other,  though,  assuredly,  that  harmo- 
ny cannot  be  exhibited  by  any  who  deny  the  propitia- 
tion for  sin  made  by  the  death  of  Christ.  Their  sys- 
tem, therefore,  obliges  them  to  deny  the  existence  of 
some  of  the  attributes  of  God,  or  to  explain  them 
away. 

"  It  is  sufficient  to  show  that  there  is  not  only  no  im- 
placability in  God,  but  a  most  tender  and  placable  af- 
fection toward  the  sinning  human  race  itself,  that  the 
Son  of  God,  by  whom  the  propitiation  was  made,  was 
the  free  gift  of  the  Father  to  us.  This  is  the  most  emi- 
nent proof  of  his  love,  that  for  our  sakes,  and  that 
mercy  might  be  extended  to  us,  '  he  spared  not  his  own 
Son  ;  but  delivered  him  up  freely  for  us  all.'  Thus  he 
is  the  fountain  and  first  moving  cause  of  that  scheme 
of  recovery  and  salvation  which  the  incarnation  and 
death  of  our  Lord  brought  into  full  and  efficient  opera- 
tion. The  question,  indeed,  is  not  wdiether  God  is  love, 
or  whether  he  is  of  a  placable  nature  ;  in  that  we  are 
agreed ;  but  it  is,  whether  God  is  holy  and  just  ; 
whether  we,  liis  creatures,  are  under  law  or  not ;  w^he- 
ther  this  law  has  any  penalty,  and  whether  God,  in  his 
rectoral  character,  is  bound  to  execute  and  uphold  that 
law."  "  These  are  points  wdiich  no  one  can  deny ; 
and  as  the  justice  of  God  is  punitive,  (for  if  it  is  not 
punitive,  his  laws  are  a  dead  letter,)  then  is  there  tvrath 
in  God  ;  then  is  God  angry  with  the  wicked  ;  then  is 
man,  as  a  sinner,  obnoxious  to  this  anger ;  and  so  a 
propitiation  becomes  necessary  to  turn  it  away  from  him. 
Nor  are  these  terms  unscriptural ',  they  are  used  in  the 


236  ATONEMENT. 

New  Testament  as  emphatically  as  in  the  old,  though 
m  a  special  sense,  a  revelation  of  the  mercy  of  God  to 
man.     John  the  Baptist  declares,  that,  if  any  man  be- 
lieveth  not  on  the  Son  of  God,  ^  the  wrath  of  God 
abideth  upon  him.'     St.  Paul  declares,  that  '  the  wrath 
of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all  ungodliness 
and  unrighteousness  of  men.'     The  day  of  judgment 
is,  with  reference  to  the  ungodly,  said  to  be  '  the  day  of 
wrath ;'  God  is  called  '  a  consuming  fire  ;'  and  as  such, 
is  the  object  of  '  reverence  and  godly  fear.'    Nor  is  this 
his    displeasure   hght ;  and  the   consequences  of  it  a 
trifling  and  temporary  inconvenience.     When  we  only 
regard  the  consequences  which  have  followed   sin  in 
society,  from  the  earliest  ages,  and  in  every  part  of  the 
world,  and  add  to  these  the  many  direct  and  fearful  in- 
flictions of  punishment  which  have  proceeded  from  the 
'  Judge  of  the   whole  earth,'   to  use  the   language  of 
Scripture,  '  our  flesh  may  well  tremble  because  of  his 
judgments.'     But  when  we  look  at  the  future  state  of 
the  wicked,  as  it  is  represented  in  Scripture,  though  ex- 
pressed generally,  and  surrounded  as  it  is  with  the  mys- 
tery of  a  world,  and  a  condition  of  being,  unknown  to 
us  in  the  present  state,  all  evils  which  history  has  crowd- 
ed into  the  lot  of  man,  appear  insignificant  in  compari- 
son to    banishment    from   God — separation    from    the 
good — public  condemnation — torment  of  spirit — 'weep- 
ing, wailing,  and  gnashing  of  teeth  ' — '  everlasting  de- 
struction ' — *  everlasting  fire.'     Let  men   talk  ever  so 
much,  and  eloquently,  of  the  pure  benevolence  of  God, 
they  cannot  abolish  the  facts  recorded  in  the  history  of 
human  suffering  in  this  world  as  the  effect  of  transgres- 
sion ;  nor  can  they  discharge  these  fearful  comminations 
from  the  pages  of  the  Book  of  God.  "  They  cannot  be 
criticised  away  ;  and  if  it  is  '  Jesus  who  saved  us  from 
this  wrath  to  come,'  that  is,  from  those  effects  of  the 
wrath  of  God  which  are  to  come,  then,  but  for  him,  we 
should  have  been  liable   to  them.     That  principle  in 
God,  from  which  such  effects  follow,  the  Scriptures  call 


ATONEMENT.  237 

wrath  ;  and  they  who  deny  the  existence  of  wrath  in 
God,  deny,  therefore,  the  Scriptures. 

"  It  by  no  means  follows,  however,  that  those  who 
thus  bow  to  inspired  authority,  must  interpret  wrath  to 
be  a  passion  in  God ;  or  that,  though  we  conclude  the 
awful  attribute  of  his  justice  to  require  satisfaction,  in 
order  to  the  forgiveness  of  the  guilty,  we  afford  reason 
to  any  to  charge  us  with  attributing  vengeful  affections 
to  the  Divine  Being.  '  Our  adversaries,'  says  Bishop 
Stillingfleet,  *  first  make  opinions  for  us,  and  then  show 
that  they  are  unreasonable.  They  first  suppose  that 
anger  in  God  is  to  be  considered  as  a  passion,  and  that 
passion  a  desire  of  revenge,  and  then  tell  us,  that  if 
we  do  not  prove  that  this  desire  of  revenge  can 
be  satisfied  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  then  we  can 
never  prove  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  to  be  true ; 
whereas  we  do  not  mean,  by  God's  anger,  any  such 
passion,  but  the  just  declaration  of  God's  will  to  punish, 
upon  our  provocation  of  him  by  our  sins  ;  we  do  not 
make  the  design  of  the  satisfaction  to  be  that  God  may 
please  himself  in  the  revenging  the  sins  of  the  guilty 
upon  the  most  innocent  person,  because  we  make  the 
design  of  punishment  not  to  be  the  satisfaction  of  an- 
ger as  a  desire  of  revenge,  but  to  be  the  vindication  of 
the  honor  and  rights  of  the  offended  person  by  such  a 
way  as  he  himself  shall  judge  satisfactory  to  the  ends 
of  his  government. 

IV.  ^'  We  now  proceed  with  those  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, the  phraseology  of  which  still  farther  establishes 
the  doctrine  of  Christ's  vicarious  atonement.  To  those, 
in  which  Christ  is  called  a  propitiation,  we  add  those 
which  speak  of  reconciliation  and  the  establishment  of 
peace  between  God  and  man  as  the  design  and  direct 
effect  of  his  death.  So  Col.  i.  19,  22,  '  For  it  pleased 
the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell,  and 
having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross,  by 
him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself;  by  him  I  say> 


238  ATONEMENT. 

whether  they  be  things  in  earth,  or  things  in  heaven  ; 
and  you  that  were  soi*e  time  ahenated  and  enemies  in 
your  mind  by  wicked  works,  yet  now  hath  he  reconciled, 
in  the  body  of  his  flesh  through  deathJ  Romans  v. 
10,  11,  'For  if  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were  re- 
conciled to  God,  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more, 
being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life.  And 
not  only  so,  but  we  also  joy  in  God  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  we  have  now  received  atone- 
mentj'  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19,  'And  all  things  are  of  God 
w4io  hath  reconciled  us  to  himself  by  Jesus  Christ,  and 
hath  given  to  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation.' 

''The  expressions  '  reconciliation '  and  '  making 
peace '  necessarily  suppose  a  previous  state  of  hostility 
between  God  and  man,  which  is  reciprocal.  This  is 
sometimes  called  enmity,  a  term,  as  it  respects  God, 
rather  unfortunate,  since  enmity  is  almost  fixed  in  our 
language  to  signify  a  malignant  and  revengeful  feeling. 
Of  this,  the  oppugners  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement 
have  availed  themselves  to  argue,  that  as  there  can  be 
no  such  affection  in  the  Divine  nature,  therefore,  recon- 
ciliation in  Scripture  does  not  mean  the  reconciliation  of 
God  to  man,  but  of  man  to  God,  whose  enmity  the  ex- 
ample and  teaching  of  Christ  they  tell  us  are  very  ef- 
fectual to  subdue.  It  is,  indeed,  a  sad  and  humbling 
truth,  and  one  which  Unitarians,  in  their  discussions  on 
the  natural  innocence  of  man,  are  not  willing  to  admit, 
that  by  the  infection  of  sin  '  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
to  God,'  that  human  nature  is  malignantly  hostile  to 
God,  and  to  the  control  of  his  law  ;  but  this  is  far  from 
expressing  the  whole  of  that  relation  of  man,  in  which, 
in  Scripture  he  is  said  to  be  at  enmity  with  God,  and 
so  to  need  a  reconciliation — the  making  of  peace  be- 
tween God  and  him.  That  relation  is  a  legal  one,  as 
that  of  a  sovereign  in  his  judicial  capacity,  and  a  crimi- 
nal who  has  violated  his  laws,  and  risen  up  against  his 
authority,  and  who  is,  therefore,  an  enemy. 


ATONEMENT.  239 

"  But  that  there  is  no  truth  in  the  notion  that  recon- 
ciliation means  no  more  than  our  laying  aside  our  en- 
mity to  God,  may  be  shown  from  Romans,  v.  10,  '  For 
if  when  we  were  enemies  we  were  reconciled  to  God.' 
Here  the  act  of  reconciling  is  ascribed  to  God  and  not 
to  us  ;  but  if  this  reconciliation  consisted  in  the  laying 
aside  our  own  enmity,  the  act  would  be  ours  alone ; 
and,  farther,  that  it  could  not  be  the  laying  aside  of  our 
enmity,  is  clear  from  the  text,  which  speaks  of  recon- 
ciliation while  we  were  yet  enemies. 

"  Here  also  a  critical  remark  will  be  appropriate. 
The  above  passage  will  show  how  falsely  it  has  been  as- 
serted that  God  is  no  where,  in  Scripture,  said  to  be 
reconciled  to  us,  and  that  they  only  declare  that  we  are 
reconciled  to  God  ;  but  the  fact  is,  that  the  very  phrase 
of  our  being  reconciled  to  God,  imports  the  turning 
away  his  wrath  from  us.  When  the  Philistines  sus- 
pected that  David  would  appease  the  anger  of  Saul,  by 
becoming  their  adversary,  they  said,  '  wherewith  should 
he  reconcile  himself  to  his  master?  Should  it  not  be 
with  the  heads  of  these  men  ?' — not,  surely,  how  shall 
he  remove  his  own  anger  against  his  master ;  but  how 
shall  he  remove  his  master's  anger  against  him  ;  how 
shall  he  restore  himself  to  his  master's  favor  ?  '  If  thou 
bring  thy  gift  to  the  altar,  and  there  rememberest  that 
thy  brother  hath  aught  against  thee,^  not  that  thou  hast 
aught  against  thy  brother,  '  first  be  reconciled  to  thy 
brother ;'  that  is,  appease  and  conciliate  him :  so  that 
the  words,  in  fact,  import  ^  see  that  thy  brother  be  recon- 
ciled to  thee,'  since  that  which  goes  before  is  not  that 
he  hath  done  thee  an  injury,  but  thou  him." — Watson. 

"  Again,  the  Apostle  says,  1  Tim.  ii.  5,  6,  ^  There  is 
one  God  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the 
man  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  allJ 
Christ  then,  as  mediator,  gave  himself  a  ransom  (anti- 
lutron,  the  price  of  redemption)  for  all.  To  whom 
was  this  ransom  paid  ?  It  was  not  paid  to  man,  to  pur- 
chase his  favor  and  reconciliation  to  God,  by  the  pay- 


S40  ATONEMENT. 

ment  of  a  price !  The  Apostle  informs  us  to  whom 
Christ  gave  himself  a  ransom,  Heb.  ix.  14.  '  Who ' 
(Christ)  '  through  the  eternal  spirit,  offered  himself 
without  spot  to  God.'  Christ,  then,  as  mediator,  offer- 
ed himself  to  God  for  man.  The  offering  was  made»^l^ 
to  God  to  render  him  propitious,  and  to  procure,  con-|f^ 
sistently  with  the  principles  of  divine  government,  that 
grace  by  which  sinners  are  renewed,  pardoned,  and  re- 
conciled to  God.  Heb.  vii.  25.  '  Wherefore  he  is  able 
to  save  them  to  the  uttermost  that  come  unto  God  by 
him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them.' 
Does  Christ  intercede  whh  men,  in  the  sense  of  this 
text,  to  reconcile  them  to  God  ?  Or  does  he  intercede 
with  God  foi'  man,  to  render  him  propitious,  that  they 
may  receive  reconciling  grace  ?  Let  God,  by  the 
mouth  of  his  Apostle,  answer  this  question.  Heb.  ix. 
24.  '  Christ  is  not  entered  into  the  holy  place  made 
with  hands,  which  are  the  figures  of  the  true,  but  into 
heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God 
for  us.'  It  is  clear,  then,  that  Christ  intercedes  with 
God  for  us.  Eph.  v.  2.  '  Christ  hath  loved  us,  and 
hath  given  himself  for  us  an  offering  and  sacrifice  to 
God  for  a  sweet  smelling  savour.'  This  not  only  fully 
refutes  the  notion  held  by"  Unitarians,  "that  men  only, 
and  not  God,  are  reconciled  by  Christ,  but  it  establishes, 
beyond  doubt,  the  fact  that  an  atonement  for  the  sins 
of  men  has  been  made  to  God,  the  object  of  which  is 
to  render  him  propitious  to  his  offending  offspring,  by 
enabling  him  to  '  be  just  and  the  justifier  of  him  that 
believeth  in  Jesus.'  If,  as"  Unitarians  "  contend,  God 
never  was  unreconciled  to  man  but  was  always  propi- 
tious, without  reference  to  a  vicarious  atonement,  man 
only  being  an  unreconciled  party,  the  offering  and  in- 
tercession of  Christ  should  have  been  made  to  and  ivith 
man ;  for  it  would  not  be  necessary  for  Christ  to  offer 
himself  to  God,  and  intercede  with  him  in  behalf  of 
man  if  God  was  not  unreconciled,  man  only  being  the 
subject  of  reconciliation  through  the  mediation  of  Christ. 


ATONEMENT.  241 

But  in  opposition  to  this  absurd  notion,  the  Scriptures 
uniformly  represent  Christ  as  offering  himself  to  God 
for  man,  and  as  interceding  with  him  in  behalf  of  his 
rebellious  oifspring." — Lee. 

Another  objection  made  by  our  opponents  to  the  doc- 
trine of  reconciliation  or  atonement,  is,  that  it  represents 
God  as  changing  from  that  state  of  reconciliation  in 
which  he  stood  to  man  when  he  first  brought  him  into 
being  to  a  state  of  unreconciliation,  from  which,  in 
consequence  of  the  atonement  made  by  Christ,  this  doc- 
trine, is  said  to  represent  him  as  changing  back  again 
to  a  state  of  reconciliation  ;  and  if  all  this  be  true,  then 
God  is  no  lon<Ter  an  immutable  beine;. 

In  answer  to  this  we  would  say,  that  if  God  now 
Stands  in  the  same  relation  to  man  that  he  did  when 
man  was  first  created,  and  shone  in  the  divine  imaire, 
then  God  must  approve  of  all  the  conduct  of  man,  con- 
sequently of  all  that  black  catalogue  of  crime  and 
iniquity  which  has  marked  the  history  of  the  human 
family,  since  the  fall  of  the  first  pair  down  to  the  pre- 
sent time,  therefore,  as  far  as  man  is  concerned,  must 
stand  opposed  to  punishment  of  every  kind.  For  it 
would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  Divine  Being 
would  punish  men  when  he  was  perfectly  reconciled  to 
them,  especially  for  deeds  of  which  he  approved  ;  there- 
fore, all  the  judgments  which  he  has  poured  upon 
nations  and  individuals,  in  consequence  of  their  sins, 
are  only  so  many  instances  of  injustice  and  cruelty  in 
the  Deity. 

2.  If  God,  independent  of  the  atonement,  now  stands 
in  the  same  reconciled  relation  as  that  in  which  he 
stood  before  the  fall,  then,  as  above  remarked,  he  cer- 
tainly cannot  punish  him  ;  consequently,  the  sufierings 
and  death  of  Christ  are  not  only  unnecessary,  but  God 
must  have  been  unjust  and  cruel  in  requiring  his  son 
thus  to  suffer  and  die  while  man  was  exposed  to  no 
danger,  but  perfectly  safe  and  sure  of  heaven  without 
his  sufferings,  death,  mediation,  or  intercession. 
21 


242  ATONEMENT. 

But  the  various  judgments  which  God  has  poured 
upon  those  nations  who  have  incurred  his  displeasure 
is  sufficient  to  answer  the  above  objection.  The  de- 
struction of  the  old  world  by  water,  and  the  cities  of 
the  plains  by  fire — the  awful  calamities  with  which  he 
visited  the  Jewish  people  when  they  forsook  his  wor- 
ship^the  curse  under  which  the  earth  now  groans — 
the  judgment  poured  upon  thousands  of  blasphemers, 
Sabbath  breakers,  and  other  heaven  daring  sinners  in 
this  life,  as  well  as  the  wailings  of  the  lost  in  the  dun- 
geons of  eternal  night,  all  tell,  in  the  most  emphatic 
language,  that  God  is  not  reconciled  to  sinners  while 
out  of  Christ,  and  if  God  must  change  in  order  to  be 
reconciled,  then  man  may  give  up  all  hope  of  ever 
gaining  the  favor  of  God,  and  retire  in  hopeless  despair 
to  the  dismal  shades  of  endless  night,  for  God  can  never 
change. 

But  it  is  not  true  that  God  cannot  now  be  unrecon- 
ciled to  man,  although  he  was  once  reconciled.  To 
show  this,  we  will  take  an  illustration.  Suppose  the 
government  of  the  United  States  sends  a  man  of  war  to 
cruise  against  pirates — I  ask,  is  not  the  government  re- 
conciled to  her  crew  when  she  sends  them  out  ?  All 
must  answer  yes,  or  she  would  not  have  sent  them* 
Suppose,  still  farther,  that  after  some  months  this  crew 
turn  pirates,  and  themselves  plunder  every  vessel  which 
they  meet,  not  sparing  the  property  and  lives  of  our 
own  citizens.  I  now  ask,  is  the  government  reconciled 
to  these  men  now  that  they  have  deserted  her  service, 
plundered  her  property,  and  murdered  her  citizens? 
Ail  will  answer  no,  and  justify  the  government  in  pur- 
suing and  destroying  these  guilty  murderers.  But  has 
the  government  changed  ?  No.  She  is  still  the  same 
government,  pursuing  the  same  onward  course  ;  but  she 
stands  in  a  new  relation  to  these  supposed  individuals, 
in  other  words,  she  was  once  reconciled  but  is  now  un- 
reconciled, while,  at  the  same  time,  she  has  not  changed, 
but  remains  the  same.     But  if  an  earthly  government 


ATONEMENT.  243 

can  be  reconciled  and  then  become  unreconciled  with- 
out changing,  why  may  not  God,  although  once  recon- 
ciled, now  become  unreconciled,  or  stand  in  a  different 
relation  to  man  from  that  in  which  he  stood  when 
man  first  awoke  to  conscious  being,  without  being 
charged  with  mutability  or  change. 

Another  objection  made  by  Unitarians  ''  to  this  doc- 
trine of  reconciliation  may  be  easily  answered.  When 
we  speak  of  the  necessity  of  Christ's  atonement,  in  or- 
der to  man's  forgiveness,  w^e  are  told,  that  we  represent 
tlie  Deity  as  implacable  ;  when  w-e  rebut  that  by  show- 
ing that  it  was  his  very  placability,  his  boundless  and 
ineffable  love  to  men,  which  sent  his  Son  into  the 
world  to  die  for  the  sins  of  mankind,  they  rejoin,  with 
their  leaders,  Socinus  and  Crellius,  that  then  '  God  was 
reconciled  before  he  sent  his  Son,  and  that,  therefore, 
Christ  did  not  die  to  reconcile  God  to  us.'  The  answer 
plainly  is,  that  in  this  objection,  they  either  mean  that 
God  had,  from  the  placability  and  compassion  of  his 
nature,  determined  to  be  reconciled  to  offenders  upon 
the  sending  his  Son,  or  that  he  was  actually  reconciled 
when  our  Lord  was  sent.  The  first  is  what  we  contend 
for,  and  is  in  no  wise  inconsistent  with  the  submission 
of  our  Lord  to  death,  since  that  was  in  pursuance  of 
the  merciful  appointment  and  decree  of  the  Father ; 
and  the  necessary  medium  by  which  this  placability  of 
God  could  honorably  and  consistently  show  itself  in  ac- 
tual reconciliation,  or  the  pardon  of  sin.  That  God 
was  not  actually  reconciled  to  man,  that  is,  that  he 
did  not  forgive  our  offences,  independent  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  Is  clear,  for  then  sin  would  have 
been  forgiven  before  it  was  committed,  and  remission 
of  sins  could  not  have  been  preached  In  the  name  of 
Christ,  nor  could  a  ministry  of  reconciliation  have  been 
committed  to  the  Apostles.  The  reconciliation  of  God 
to  man  is,  throughout,  a  conditional  one,  and,  as  in  all 
conditional  processes  of  this  kind,  it  has  three  stages. 
The  first  is  when  the  party  offended  is  disposed  to  ad' 


244  ATONEMENT. 

mit  of  terms  of  agreement,  which,  in  God,  is  matter  of 
pure  grace  and  favor  ;  the  second  is  when  he  declares 
his  acceptance  of  the  mediation  of  a  third  person,  and 
that  he  is  so  satisfied  with  what  he  hath  done  in  order 
to  it,  that  he  appoints  it  to  be  announced  to  the  ofFen-^^. 
der,  that  if  the  breach  continues,  the  fault  lies  whollj^B^" 
upon  himself;  the  third  is  when  the  offender  accepts 
of  the  terms  of  agreement  which  are  offered  to  him, 
submits,  and  is  received  into  favor.  'Thus,'  says 
Bishop  Stillingfleet,  '  upon  the  death  and  sufierings  of 
Christ,  God  declares  that  he  is  so  satisfied  with  what 
Christ  hath  done  and  suffered  in  order  to  the  reconcilia- 
tion between  himself  and  us,  that  he  now  publishes 
remission  of  sins  to  the  world,  upon  those  terms  which 
the  Mediator  hath  declared  by  his  own  doctrine  and 
the  Apostles  he  sent  to  preach  it.  But  because  remis- 
sion of  sins  doth  not  immediately  follow  upon  the  death 
of  Christ,  without  any  supposition  of  any  act  on  our 
part,  therefore  the  state  of  favor  doth  commence  from 
tlie  performance  of  the  conditions  which  are  required 
of  us.'  Whoever  considers  these  obvious  distinctions 
will  have  an  ample  answer  to  the  above  objection." — 
Watso?i. 

V.  "  The  doctrine  of  a  vicarious  atonement  is  fully 
confirmed  by  those  scriptures  which  speak  of  Jesus 
Christ  as  a  redeemer,  and  man  as  being  redeemed  by 
turn. 

"  Matt.  XX.  28  and  Mark  x.  45.  '  The  son  of  man 
came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to 
give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many.' 

"  1  Tim.  ii.  6.  '  Who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for 
all.'  The  English  word  I'ctnsoin  contained  in  the  above 
quotations  is  thus  defined  by  Dr.  Webster. 

"  '  RANSOM,  n.  1.  The  money  or  price  paid  for 
the  redemption  of  a  prisoner  or  slave,  or  for  goods  cap- 
tured by  an  enemy.  2.  Release  from  captivity,  bon- 
dage, or  the  possession  of  an  enemy.  3.  In  laiv,  a 
sum  paid  for  the  pardon  of  some  great  offence  and  the 


ATONEMENT.  245 

discharge  of  the  offender ;  or  a  fine  paid  in  heu  of  cor- 
poreal punishment.  4.  In  scripiure,  the  price  paid  for 
a  forfeited  hfe,  or  for  dehvering  or  release  from  capital 
punishment.  5.  The  price  paid  for  procuring  the 
pardon  of  sins  and  the  redemption  of  the  sinner  from 
punishment.' 

"■  RANSOM,  V.  t.  1 .  To  redeem  froj:n  captivity 
or  punishment  by  paying  an  equivalent.  2.  To  re- 
deem from  the  possession  of  an  enemy  by  paying  a 
price  deemed  equivalent.  3.  In  scripture,  to  redeem 
from  the  bondage  of  sin,  and  from  the  punishment  to 
which  sinners  are  subjected  by  the  divine  law.  4.  To 
rescue,  to  deliver. 

'^  If  then  Christ  '  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  many,' 
*  for  all,'  in  the  above  sense,  there  is  no  room  for  far- 
ther controversy.  The  texts  above  quoted  teach  that 
Christ  has  ransomed  sinners  from  the  bondage  of  sin 
and  the  punishment  to  which  they  are  subjected  by  the 
divine  law,  by  paying  his  life  a  price  for  theirs. 

"  It  may  then  be  asked,  if  the  word  ransom  is  a  pro- 
per translation  of  the  original  Greek. 

"  The  word  which  the  Evangelist  employs,  rendered 
ransom  by  our  translators,  is  lutron,  which  is  thus  de- 
fined in  the  Greek  and  English  Lexicons :  Lutron, 
ransom,  redemption,  atonement,  price  of  deliverance. 
The  word  which  the  apostle  uses  in  the  above  text  is 
antilutron,  and  is  thus  defined  :  '  Antilutron,  (from  anti, 
inturn,  and  lutron,  a  ransom,)  the  price  of  redemption, 
ransom.' 

"  It  is  clear  then  that  Christ  has  ransomed  us  by 
giving  his  life  a  ransom  for  ours. 

"  This  view  is  farther  supported  by  those  scriptures, 
which  express  the  same  sentiment  by  the  terms  redeem, 
redemption,  he. 

^'  Rom.  iii.  24.   *  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace, 

through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.'    1.  Cor. 

i.  30.  '  But  of  him  are  ye   in   Christ  Jesus,  who,  of 

God,  is  made  unto  us  redemption.^     Gal.  iv.  45.  '  God 

21* 


246  ATONEMENT. 

sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  tlhj 
law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law.'  Tit.  ii, 
14.  '  Who  gave  himself  for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  ug 
from  all  iniquity.'  Heb.  ix.  15.  '  And  for  this  cause  he 
is  the  Mediator  of  the  New  Testament,  that  by  means 
of  death,  for  the  redemption  of  the  transgressors  that 
were  under  the  first  testament,  that  they  which  are 
called  might  receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inheri- 
tance.' 

It  is  clear,  from  these  texts,  that  Christ  has  redeemed 
us,  that  he  is  the  Redeemer  and  we  the  redeemed. 
We  ask,  then,  what  is  it  to  redeem,  or  what  is  redemp- 
tion ?  So  far  as  the  English  word  is  concerned  there 
can  be  hardly  room  for  dispute. 

"  The  word  redeem  Dr.  Webster  defines  as  follows : 

'''REDEEM,  V.  t.  1.  To  purchase  back;  to  ran- 
som ;  to  liberate  or  rescue  from  captivity  or  bondage^ 
or  from  any  obligation,  or  liability  to  suffer  or  to  be  for- 
feited, by  paying  an  equivalent.  2.  To  repurchase 
what  has  been  sold  ;  to  regain  possession  of  a  thing  al- 
ienated, by  repaying  the  value  of  it,'  he.  With  this 
corresponds  his  definition  of  the  word  redemption, 
which  he  defines  thus  :  '  REDEMPTION,  n.,  repur- 
chase of  captured  goods  or  persons  ;  the  act  of  procur- 
ing the  deliverance  of  persons  or  things  from  the  pos- 
session of  captors  by  the  payment  of  an  equivalent. 
**#  In  theology,  the  ransom  or  deliverance  of  sinners 
from  the  bondage  of  sin  and  the  penalties  of  God's 
violated  law  by  the  atonement  of  Christ.'  Indeed, 
these  terms  are  so  well  understood  that  it  can  hardly 
be  necessary  to  produce  authority  to  establish  their 
meaning ;  and  yet,  if  Christ  has  redeemed  us  in  this 
sense,  the  controversy  is  ended  in  plain  English,  and 
the  doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement  is  established.  Now 
that  it  is  in  this  sense  that  Christ  has  redeemed  us,  ap- 
pears from  the  following  considerations  : 

1.  "These  English  terms  well  express  the  sense  of 
the  original  Greek* 


ATONEMENT.  247 

**  In  Romans  Hi.  24,  in  the  expression,  *  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,'  the  Apostle  uses  tho 
word  oj)oIutroseos,  which  our  translators  have  rendered 
redemption,  and  which  literally  signifies  deliverance 
from  captivity. 

"  In  Tit.  ii.  14,  in  which  it  is  said,  Christ '  gave  him- 
self for  us  that  he  might  redeem  us,'  the  verb  which  is 
rendered  redeem  is,  in  the  original,  lutrosetia,  which  is 
derived  from  lou,  to  pay,  and  signifies  to  ransom  or  to 
redeem,  and  the  very  derivation  of  the  word  shows  that 
it  signifies  to  redeem  by  paying  a  redemption  price. 

''  In  Gal.  iv.  4,  5,  where  the  Apostle  says,  Christ 
'was  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were 
under  the  law,'  the  original  word  which  is  rendered  re- 
deem  is  exagorase.  This  word  is  compounded  of  ex, 
from,  and  agorazo,  to  buy,  and  signifies  to  buy  from  or  out 
of  implying  that  Christ  has  redeemed,  i.  e.,  bought  us 
from  or  out  of  the  claims  or  power  of  the  law,  so  as  to 
deliver  us  from  the  penalty  which  it  inflicts  on  trans- 
gressors, as  the  Apostle  states,  chapter  iii.  13  :  '  Christ 
has  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law.' 

2.  "  The  connection  in  which  these  terms  are  used 
is  sufficient  to  convince  the  plain  English  reader,  with- 
out any  reference  to  the  original,  that  redemption  by 
price  or  purchase  is  intended.  It  is  said  that  '  Christ 
gave  himself  for  us  that  he  might  redeem  us.'  1  Pet. 
•i.  18,  19:  '  Ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible 
things,  as  silver  and  gold,  but  with  the  precious  blood 
of  Christ.'  These  forms  of  expression  clearly  imply 
that  a  price  was  paid  for  our  redemption,  and  that  the 
sufFerinss  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ  constituted  such 
price. 

"  This  view  is  farther  supported  by  other  expressions 
which  represent  us  as  being  purchased,  bought,  &;c. 
Acts  XX.  28  :  'Feed  the  Church  of  God,  which  he 
hath  purchased  with  his  blood.'  1  Cor.  vi.  20 :  'Ye 
are  bought  with  a  price,  therefore  glorify  God  in  your 
body,  and  in  your  spirit,  which  are  his.'     2  Pet.  ii.  1 : 


248  ATONEMENT. 

'  There  shall  be  false  teachers  among  you,  who  privily 
shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even  denying  the  Lord 
that  bought  them.'  In  the  first  of  these  texts  the 
Church  is  said  to  be  bought,  and  the  blood  of  Christ  is 
stated  to  have  been  the  price  paid.  In  the  second  of 
the  above  texts  the  Corinthians  are  said  to  be  bought 
with  a  price,  and  what  was  that  price  more  or  less  than 
the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  '  who  gave  himself 
a  ransom  for  all  ?'  In  the  third  of  the  above  quotations, 
some  persons  are  said  to  deny  the  Lord  that  bought 
them  ;  therefore  they  must  have  been  bought." — Lee. 

"  It  has  been  attempted  to  evade  the  literal  import  of 
the  important  terms  on  which  we  have  dwelt,  by  urging 
that  such  an  interpretation  would  involve  the  absurdity 
of  paying  a  price  to  Satan,  the  power  said  to  hold  men 
captive  at  his  will. 

''  But  why  should  the  idea  of  redemption  be  confined 
to  the  purchasing  of  a  captive  ?  The  reason  appears  to 
be,  that  the  objection  may  be  invested  with  some  plausi- 
bihty.  The  fact,  however,  is,  that  this  is  but  one  spe- 
cies and  instance  of  redemption  ;  for  the  word,  in  its 
proper  and  general  sense,  means  deliverance  from  evil  of 
any  kind,  a  price  or  valuable  consideration  intervening  ; 
which  valuable  consideration  may  not  always  be  a  price, 
that  is,  not  money,  but  something  done,  or  something 
suffered,  by  which,  in  the  case  of  commutation  of  pun- 
ishment, the  lawgiver  is  satisfied,  though  no  benefit  oc- 
curs to  him  ;  because  in  punishment  respect  is  not  had 
to  the  benefit  of  the  lawgiver,  but  to  the  common  good 
and  order  of  things.  So  when  Zaleucus,  the  Locrian 
lawgiver,  had  to  pass  sentence  upon  his  son,  for  a  crime 
which,  by  his  own  laws,  condemned  the  aggressor  to 
the  loss  of  both  his  eyes,  rather  than  relax  his  laws  by 
sparing  his  son,  he  ordered  him  to  be  deprived  of  one  of 
his  eyes,  and  submitted  to  be  deprived  of  one  himself. 
Thus  the  eye  of  Zaleucus  was  the  price  of  that  of  his 
son. 

"  But  even  if  the  redemption  in  Scripture  related 


ATONEMENT.  249 

wholly  to  captivity,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  price 
must  bo  paid  to  him  who  detains  the  captive.  Our 
captivity  to  Satan  is  not  parallel  to  the  case  of  a  captive 
taken  in  war,  and  in  whom,  by  the  laws  of  war,  the 
captor  has  obtained  a  right,  and  demands  an  equivalent 
for  liberation  and  the  renunciation  of  that  ridit.  Our 
captivity  to  Satan  is  judicial.  Man  listens  to  tempta- 
tion, violates  the  laws  of  God,  joins  in  a  rebellion  a^^ainst 
his  authority,  and  his  being  left  under  the  power  of 
Satan  is  a  part  of  his  punishment.  The  satisfaction  is, 
therefore,  to  be  made  to  the  law  under  which  this  cap- 
tivity is  made  a  part  of  the  penalty ;  not  to  him  who 
detains  the  captive,  and  who  is  but  a  permitted  instru- 
ment in  the  execution  of  the  law,  but  to  him  whose  law 
has  been  violated.  He  who  pays  the  price  of  redemp- 
tion has  to  do  with  the  judicial  authority,  and,  his  price 
being  accepted,  he  proceeds  to  rescue  the  object  of  his 
compassion,  and  becomes  the  actual  redeemer. 

The  price  in  the  case  of  man  is  the  blood  of  Christ ; 
and  our  redemption  is  not  a  commutation  of  a  pecunia- 
ry price  for  a  person,  but  a  commutation  of  the  suffer- 
ings of  one  person  in  the  stead  of  another,  which  suf- 
ferings being  a  punishment,  in  order  to  satisfaction,  is 
a  valuable  consideration,  and,  therefore,  a  price  for  the 
redemption  of  man  out  of  the  hands  of  Satan,  and 
from  all  the  consequences  of  that  captivity. 

Under  this  head,  now  that  we  are  showing  that  the 
death  of  Christ  is  exhibited  in  Scripture  as  the  price  of 
our  redemption,  it  may  also  be  necessary  to  meet  an- 
other objection,  that  this  doctrine  of  purchase  and  com- 
mutation is  inconsistent  with  that  freeness  of  the  grace 
of  God  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  on  which  so  great  a 
stress  is  laid  in  the  Scriptures.  This  objection  has  been 
urged  from  Socinus  to  Dr.  Priestley,  and  has  been  thus 
stated  by  the  latter :  '  The  Scriptures  uniformly  repre- 
sent God  as  our  universal  parent,  pardoning  sinners 
freely,  that  is,  from  his  natural  goodness  and  mercy, 
whenever  they  repent  and  reform  their  lives.     All  the 


250  ATONEMENT. 

declarations  of  Divine  mercy  are  made,  without  reserve 
and  limitation,  to  the  truly  penitent,  through  all  the 
books  of  Scripture,  without  the  most  distant  hint  of  any 
regard  being  had  to  the  sufferings  or  merit  of  any  be- 
ing whatever.'  The  proofs  which  he  gives  of  this  bold, 
and,  indeed,  impudent  position,  are  chiefly  the  declara- 
tion of  the  Apostle,  that  we  are  justified  freely  by  the 
grace  of  God,  and  he  contends  that  the  word  freely 
'implies  that  forgiveness  is  the  free  gift  of  God,  and 
proceeds  from  his  essential  goodness  *and  mercy,  with- 
out regard  to  any  foreign  consideration  whatever.''  It 
is  singular,  however,  that  the  position,  as  Dr.  Priestley 
has  put  it  in  the  above  quotations,  refutes  itself;  for  even 
he  restricts  the  exercise  of  the  mercy  of  God,  '  to  the 
truly  penitent,'  ^  to  them  who  repent  and  reform  their 
lives.'  Forgiveness,  therefore,  is  not,  even  according 
to  him  and  his  followers,  free  in  the  sense  of  uncondi- 
tional ;  and  at  the  very  time  he  denies  that  pardon  is 
bestowed  by  God,  '  without  regard  to  any  consideration 
whatever,  foreign  to  his  essential  goodness  and  mercy,' 
he  acknowledges  that  it  is  regulated,  in  its  exercise,  by 
the  consideration  of  the  penitence  or  non-penitence  of 
the  guilty,  who  are  the  subjects  of  it,  from  which  the 
contradictory  conclusion  follows,  that,  in  bestowing  mer- 
cy, God  has  respect  to  a  consideration  foreign  to  his 
goodness  and  mercy,  even  the  penitence  of  man,  so  that 
there  is,  in  the  mode  of  dispensing  mercy,  a  reserve 
and  limitation  on  the  part  of  God. 

''  Thus,  then,  unless  they  would  let  in  all  kinds  of 
license,  by  preaching  an  unconditional  pardon.  Uni- 
tarians are  obliged  to  acknowledge  that  a  thing  may  be 
done  freely,  which  is,  nevertheless,  not  done  uncondi- 
tionally. 

"  But  the  very  passage  of  St.  Paul  to  which  Dr. 
Priestly  refers,  when  he  contends  that  the  doctrine  of 
tlie  New  Testament  is,  *  that  forgiveness  is  the  free  gift 
of  God,  and  proceeds  from  his  essential  goodness  and 
mercy,  without  regard  to  any  foreign  consideration  what- 


ATONEMENT.  251 

ever/  refutes  his  inference.  The  passage  is,  ^  being 
justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  redcmjHion 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus. ^  The  same  doctrine  is  tauo-ht 
in  other  passages ;  and  so  far  is  it  from  being  true,  that 
no  reference  is  made  to  any  consideration  beyond  the 
mere  goodness  and  mercy  of  God,  that  consideration  is 
stated  in  so  many  express  words,  '  through  the  redemp- 
tion which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ;'  of  which  redemption 
tlie  blood  of  Christ  is  the  price,  as  taught  in  the  texts 
above  commented  on.  But  though  it  was  convenient, 
in  order  to  render  a  bold  assertion  more  plausible,  to 
keep  this  out  of  sight,  a  little  reflection  might  have 
shown  that  the  argument  built  upon  the  word  freely, 
the  term  used  by  the  Apostle,  proceeds  upon  an  entire 
mistake.  The  expression  has  reference  to  ourselves  and 
to  our  own  exertions  in  the  work  of  justification,  not  to 
any  thing  which  has  been  done  by  another  in  our  be- 
half; and  it  is  here  used  to  denote  the  manner  in  which 
the  blessing  is  bestowed,  not  the  means  by  which  it  is 
procured.  '  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  ' — freely 
in  the  way  of  a  gift  unmerited  by  us,  and  not  in  the 
w^ay  of  a  reward  for  our  worthiness  or  desert,  agreeably 
to  the  assertion  of  the  Apostle  in  another  place,  '  not 
by  the  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but 
according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us.'  To  be  justified  is 
to  be  pardoned  and  treated  as  righteous  in  the  sight  of 
God,  and  to  be  admitted  thus  into  his  favor  and  accept- 
ance. But  man,  in  his  fallen  state,  had  nothing  in  him- 
self, and  could  do  nothing  of  himself,  by  which  he 
might  merit  or  claim  as  his  due  so  great  a  benefit.  Hav- 
ing, therefore,  no  pretensions  to  real  righteousness,  our 
absolution  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  our  admission  to 
the  character  and  privileges  of  righteous  persons,  must 
be  imputed  not  to  our  merit,  but  to  the  grace  of  God  ;  it 
is  an  act  of  mercy  which  we  must  acknowledge  and 
receive  as  a  free  gift,  and  not  demand  as  a  just  reward. 
Nor  do  the  means  by  which  our  justification  was  effect- 
ed in  any  respect  alter  its  nature  as  a  gift,  or  in  the  least 


252 


ATONEMENT. 


diminish  its  freedom.  *We  are  justified  freely  by  his 
grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Clirist ;' 
but  this  redemption  was  not  procured  by  us,  nor  provi- 
ded at  our  expense.  It  was  the  resuh  of  the  pure  love 
of  God,  who,  compassionating  our  misery,  himself  pro- 
videdjhe  means  of  our  deliverance,  by  sending  his  only 
begotten  Son  into  the  world,  who  voluntarily  submitted 
to  die  upon  the  cross,  that  he  might  become  the  propi- 
*tiation  for  our  sins,  and  reconcile  us  to  God.  Thus  is 
the  whole  an  entire  act  of  mercy  on  the  part  of  God 
and  Christ ;  begun  and  completed  for  our  benefit,  but 
without  our  intervention  ;  and,  therefore,  with  respect  to 
us,  the  pardon  of  sin  must  still  be  accounted  a  gift, 
though  it  comes  to  us  through  the  redemption  that  is  in 
Jesus  Christ. —  Watson. 

Another  objection  urged  by  our  opponents  against 
this  doctrine  of  redemption  or  vicarious  atonement,  is, 
as  we  have  already  seen  thus  stated  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Grundy :  "  This  doctrine  converts  justice  into  ven- 
geance. It  first  plunges  its  sword  into  the  soul  of  the 
innocent ;  it  afterwards  pursues  multitudes  of  those 
whose  punishment  he  bore,  and  relentlessly  plunges 
them  into  the  flames  of  hell."  And  in  this  objection 
Mr.  Grundy  is  followed  by  those  Unitarians  who  call 
themselves  by  the  name  of  Christians,  as  will  appear 
from  the  following  exclamation  once  made  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  writer  by  one  of  their  preachers,  (the 
Rev.  Harry  Ashly.)  "  What !  seize  upon  the  innocent 
Jesus  and  compel  him  to  suffer  for  guilty  man,  and 
then  call  it  eternal  justice  !"  The  same  objection  was, 
in  substance,  also  made  by  the  Rev.  James  Hayes,  in 
the  controversy  before  alluded  to  in  this  work.  But  in 
answer  to  this  we  would  say,  that  so  far  was  the  Sa- 
viour from  being  seized  and  compelled  to  suffer,  that  he 
laid  down  his  life  voluntarily.  John  x.  11.  "  I  am 
the  good  shepherd :  the  good  shepherd  giveth  his  life 
for  the  sheep."  John  x.  17,  18.  "Therefore  doth  my 
father  love  me  because  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep 


ATONEMENT.  253 

that  I  may  take  it  again."  "  No  man  taketh  it  from  me, 
but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself.  I  have  power  to  lay  it 
down  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again."  The  Sa- 
viour then,  instead  of  being  seized  and  con)pelled  to 
suffer  and  die  in  the  place  of  fallen  and  guilty  man, 
voluntarily  laid  down  his  life  and  became  obedient  to 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross  ;  and  while  he  thus 
suffered  and  died  of  his  own  free  will,  it  was  also  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  will  of  the  Father.  Where,  then,  is 
the  injustice  in  his  thus  giving  himself  a  ransom  for  a 
guilty  world  ? 

2.  If,  as  our  opponents  contend,  Christ  could  not 
suffer  in  the  place  of  sinners  without  suffering  unjustly, 
God  is  unjust ;  for  it  is  expressly  said  that  the  Lord 
hath  laid  upon  him  the  iniquities  of  us  all.  Again, 
"  he  (God)  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us  who  know  no 
sin."  And  still  farther,  it  is  said,  "he  (God)  hath  made 
him  to  be  a  curse  for  us."  How  can  an  innocent  being 
have  the  iniquities  of  us  all  laid  upon  him  in  any  other 
way  than  by  having  the  punishment  due  to  our  sins 
laid  upon  him  ?  How  could  God  make  the  Saviour, 
who,  as  the  Scriptures  say,  knew  no  sin,  to  be  sin  for 
us  only  by  inflicting  upon  him  the  punishment  to  which 
we  were  exposed  in  consequence  of  violating  the  laws 
of  a  just  and  holy  God  ?  Or  how  could  the  Saviour  be 
made  a  curse  for  us,  unless  it  was  by  hanging  upon  the 
tree,  and  there  bearing  in  our  stead  that  curse  under 
which  man  must  have  for  ever  groaned  had  the  Saviour 
never  died  ?  It  would  have  been  impossible  :  therefore, 
it  remains  evident  that  Christ  did  suffer  a  vicarious 
deatli ;  and  if  this  was  unjust,  then  the  Deity  who  ap- 
pointed him  thus  to  bear  "  the  chastisement "  or  punish- 
ment due  to  our  sins  must  be  unjust. 

3.  That  Jesus  Christ  did  suffer  and  die  for  man,  in 
some  sense  cannot  be  denied  even  by  Unitarians. 
"  Now  suppose  the  act  was  unjust,  on  the  supposition 
that  his  death  was  vicarious,  i.  e.,  in  the  place  of  the 
sinner's  death,  we  ask  in  what  respect  it  would  be  less 

22 


254  ATONEMENT. 

unjust  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  not  vicarious  ?  Is 
it  unjust  for  Christ  to  die  to  redeem  the  world,  by  giving 
his  Hfe  a  ransom  for  the  forfeited  hves  of  sinners,  while 
it  is  just  for  him  to  die  under  circumstances  in  every 
respect  similar,  with  the  exception  that  his  death  is  not 
a  ransom  for  the  lives  of  sinners  ?  If  Christ  suffered 
vicariously  for  sinners,  his  death  contemplated  a  greater 
amount  of  good  than  it  could  have  done  had  he  died 
merely  as  a  martyr  for  the  truth  ;  hence,  if  our  oppo- 
nents prefer  the  charge  of  injustice  against  the  doctrine 
of  Christ's  vicarious  death,  they  aggravate  the  circum- 
stance of  injustice  in  proportion  as  they  lessen  the 
amount  of  good  to  be  secured  by  it,  by  denying  its 
atoning  merits." — Lee, 

4.  It  is  not,  as  Mr.  Grundy  says,  "  this  doctrine  which 
plunges  the  sword  into  the  soul  of  the  innocent,"  but 
Jehovah  himself  who  thus  exclaims,  in  view  of  the 
death  of  Christ  "  Awake,  O  sword,  against  my  shep- 
herd, and  against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow.  Smite 
the  shepherd."  Zach.  xiii.  7.  Here  the  Lord  (Je- 
hovah) is  heard  calling  upon  the  sword  to  awake  against 
his  shepherd,  and  the  man  that  is  his  fellow,  who  is 
Christ,  for  the  purpose  of  smiting  him.  Is  this  unjust  ? 
Let  Unitarians  answer.  If  they  say  that  it  is,  then 
Deity  himself  must  stand  branded  with  injustice.  But 
if,  to  avoid  this  conclusion,  they  withdraw  their  charge, 
and  grant  that  God  was  just  when  he  called  upon  the 
sword  to  awake  and  smite  the  Saviour,  and  when  it 
pleased  the  Lord  to  wound  and  bruise  him  for  our 
transgressions,  or  lay  upon  him  the  iniquities  of  us  all, 
then  the  above  objection  loses  all  its  force. 
'  5.  If  the  above  objection  is  founded  in  truth,  it  will 
follow,  not  only  that  the  Father  who  sent  his  Son  to  die 
for  our  sins  is  unjust,  but  the  charge  of  injustice  will 
lay  with  equal  force  against  the  Son,  for  he  did  "  die 
for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures."  "  He  died, 
the  just,  for  the  unjust."  He  gave  his  life  for  the  sheep, 
and  if  it  is  unjust  for  ^'  the  innocent  Jesus  "  to  suffer 


ATONEMENT.  255 

for  guilty  man,  then  the  Saviour,  when  he  thus  vohm- 
tarily  suffered  and  died,  must  have  been  guilty  of  an 
act  of  injustice.  We  therefore  see  that  if  Unitarianism 
be  true,  we  have  both  an  unjust  God  and  an  unjust  Sa- 
viour. 

The  same  remarks  will  apply  with  equal  force  to  the 
charge  of  injustice  on  the  part  of  God,  in  punishing 
the  sinner,  although  Christ  has  suffered  "  the  just  for 
the  unjust,"  for  that  he  has  thus  suffered  has  been 
abundantly  proved,  and  that  those  who  refuse  to  accept 
of  offered  mercy  will  be  punished  is  obvious,  from  the 
following  testimony  of  Divine  truth :  "  The  wicked 
shall  be  turned  into  hell,  and  all  the  nations  that  forget 
God."  The  wicked  shall  be  driven  away  in  his 
wickedness,  the  righteous  only  hath  hope  in  his  death. 
*' These  (the  wicked)  shall  go  away  into  everlasting 
punishment,  but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal."  "  De- 
part ye  cursed  into  everlasting  fire  prepared  for  the 
devil  and  his  angels."  "  Their  worm  dieth  not,  and 
their  fire  is  not  quenched."  "  The  Lord  Jesus  shall  be 
revealed  from  iieaven  in  flaminc]^  fire,  takino-  veno-eance 
on  them  that  know  not  God,  and  who  obey  not  the 
gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  be  punished 
with  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power."  These  pas- 
sages plainly  prove  that  the  finally  wicked  will  at 
last  receive  the  punishment  due  to  their  sins,  while 
others  which  have  been  noticed  prove  with  equal  clear- 
ness that  Christ  did  suffer  in  our  stead :  therefore,  if 
this  is  an  unjust  course  of  proceeding,  then  God  is  an 
unjust  being. 

But  all  difficulty  on  this  subject,  and  every  appear- 
ance of  injustice,  will  disappear  when  we  recollect  that 
the  blood  of  the  Saviour  is  the  blood  of  "  a  covenant 
which  demands  '  repentance  toward  God,  and  faith  to- 
ward our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'  '  for  the  remission  of 
sins,' — the  ^  faithfulness  and  justice '  which  require  the 
absolution  of  those  who,  with  a  proper  reference  to  the 


256  ATONEMENT. 

propitiatory  sacrifice;  'confess  their  sins/  do  not  re- 
quire the  absolution  of  those  who  obstinately  continue 
in  their  sin  and  unbelief.  '  God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  be- 
lie veth  in  him  might  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life,'  John  iii.  16.  They,  therefore,  who  obstinately 
refuse  to  believe  in  him,  are  justly  left  to  '  die  in  their 
iniquity.'  '  If  we  sin  wilfully  (by  rejecting  reconcilia- 
tion) after  that  we  have  received  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins,  but  a 
fearful  looking  for  of  judgment,  and  fiery  indignation 
which  shall  devour  the  adversaries.'  The  sinner,  then, 
is  justly  charged,  not  only  with  the  sins,  the  pardon  of 
which  he  has  obstinately  refused,  but  with  that  of 
'  treading  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,'  and  of  '  count- 
ing the  blood  of  the  covenant  a  common  thing.'  In 
other  words,  the  end  of  public  justice  is  not  answered 
by  the  death  of  Christ,  in  those  who  live  and  die  im- 
penitent, and  therefore  must  be  answered  by  the  exer- 
cise of  distributive  justice." — Hare. 

It  is  also  objected  that  if  Jesus  Christ  suffered  in  our 
stead,  for  the  purpose  of  saving  us  from  the  curse  and 
penalty  of  the  Divine  Law,  and  if,  as  Trinitarians 
contend,  the  penalty  of  the  Law  is  eternal  death,  then 
Christ  must  suffer  eternally. 

In  answer  to  this  we  would  say,  that  it  was  not 
necessary  for  Christ  to  suffer  the  same  length  of  time 
that  the  sinner  would  have  been  under  the  necessity  of 
suffering  if  no  atonement  had  ever  been  made,  for  his 
nature  was  such,  being  both  God  and  man,  that  he  was 
capable  of  suffering  as  much  in  a  short  period  as  the 
sinner  will  be  through  eternity.  Let  no  one,  however, 
infer  from  this  that  we  suppose  the  Divine  nature  itself 
suffered,  for  as  Divinity  is  unchangeable  it  is  impossible 
that  it  should  suffer  in  the  least  degree  as  suffering  if 
applied  to  Deity  would  imply  a  change.  But  notwith- 
standing the  Divine  nature  of  Christ  could  not  in  itself 
suffer,  yet  it  could,  and  undoubtedly  did  support  the 


ATONEMENT.  257 

humanity  in  its  suffering  for  sinners.  In  the  second 
place  we  would  remark  that  it  was  not  necessary  that 
Jesus  should  suffer  as  much  as  the  transgressor,  in  order 
to  satisfy  the  claims  of  the  Law,  for  his  sufferings  were 
of  more  value  than  any  or  every  created  being.  Yea, 
the  union  of  the  Divine  with  the  human  nature,  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ,  stamped  his  suffering  with  in- 
finite merit :  of  this  we  may  assure  ourselves  by  reason- 
ing from  the  less  to  the  greater.  A  clod  of  the  valley, 
for  instance,  is  of  no  real  worth  or  dignity ;  it  is  not 
capable  of  suffering,  and  if  it  was,  its  sufferings  could 
not  possess  any  merit.  But  let  that  clod  of  the  valley 
or  heap  of  earth,  that  lays  thus  incapable  of  suffering, 
be  connected  with  a  spirit  as  it  is  in  man,  and  it  is  not 
only  rendered  susceptible  of  pain  and  suffering  but  there 
is  immediately  a  new  dignity  stamped  upon  it,  so  that 
its  sufferings  are  of  great  value  in  behalf  of  any  one. 
But  if  being  connected  with  a  finite  created  spirit  in- 
creases the  value  of  its  suffering  in  such  a  ratio,  what 
must  be  the  value  of  those  sufferings  when  connected 
with  an  infinite  spirit  as  in  the  case  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 
Or,  we  may  reason  thus,  if  the  sufferings  of  man  are 
of  more  value  than  those  of  a  brute,  and  those  of  an 
angel  than  those  of  a  man,  it  will  follow  as  we  proceed 
in  this  gradation,  ad  infinitum,  and  can  find  a  being 
whose  nature  has  no  bounds  his  sufferings  will  be  of  in- 
finite value.  Such  was  the  nature  of  Jesus  Christ,  our 
atoning  high  priest,  for  he  was  God  manifest  in  the 
flesh,  and  as  such  his  sufferings,  though  of  short  dura- 
tion, must  have  been  of  infinite  worth ;  consequently 
he  could  bear  the  curse  of  the  divine  law,  and  thereby 
make  it  possible  for  God  to  be  just,  and  yet  the  justifier 
of  him  that  believeth  without  suffering  eternally,  there- 
fore, the  above  objection  looses  all  its  force,  and  like 
many  others  which  have  been  noticed,  disappears  before 
the  blaze  of  gospel  truth. 

But  Unitarians  contend  that  the  dignity  of  the  per- 
son adds  nothing  to  the  merit  of  his  suffering.     "  The 
22* 


258  ATONEMENT. 

common  opinion  of  mankind,  in  all  ages,  is,  however, 
a  sufficient  refutation  of  this  objection,  for  in  proportion 
to  the  excellence  of  the  creatures  immolated  in  sacrifice 
have  the  value  and  efficacy  of  oblations  been  estimated 
by  all  people ;  which  notion  when  perverted,  made 
them  resort,  in  some  instances,  to  human  sacrifices,  in 
cases  of  great  extremity  ;  and  surely,  if  the  principle 
of  substitution  existed  in  the  penal  law  of  any  human 
government,  it  would  be  universally  felt  to  make  a  great 
difference  in  the  character  of  the  law,  whether  an  honor- 
able or  a  mean  substitute  were  exacted  in  place  of  the 
guilty ;  and  that  it  would  have  greatly  changed  the 
character  of  the  act  of  Zaleucus,  the  Locrian  law- 
giver, and  placed  the  estimation  in  which  he  held 
his  own  laws,  and  the  degree  of  strictness  with  which 
he  was  determined  to  uphold  them,  in  a  very  dif- 
ferent light,  if,  instead  of  parting  with  one  of  his  own 
eyes,  in  place  of  the  remaining  eye  of  his  son,  he  had 
ordered  the  eye  of  some  base  slave  or  of  a  malefactor 
to  be  plucked  out.  But  without  entering  into  this,  the 
notion  will  be  explicitly  refuted,  if  we  turn  to  the  testi- 
mony of  Holy  Writ  itself,  in  which  the  dignity  and 
Divinity  of  our  Lord  are  so  often  emphatically  referred 
to  as  stamping  that  value  upon  his  sacrifice,  as  giving 
that  consideration  to  his  voluntary  sufferings  on  our  ac- 
count, which  we  usually  express  by  the  term  of  '  his 
merits,^  Acts  xx.  28,  as  God,  he  is  said  to  have  '  pur- 
chased the  church  with  his  own  blood.'  In  Colos- 
sians  i.  14,  15,  we  are  said  to  have  '  redemption  through 

HIS  BLOOD,  who  is  THE   IMAGE  OF  THE  INVISIBLE   GoD.' 

In  1  Cor.  ii.  8,  '  the  Lord  of  Glory  is  said  to  have 
been  crucified.'  St.  Peter  emphatically  calls  the 
blood  of  Christ  '  precious  blood  ;'  and  St.  Paul  dwells 
particularly  upon  this  peculiarity,  when  he  contrasts 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  with  those  of  the  law,  and  when 
he  ascribes  that  purifying  efficacy,  which  he  denies  to 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  to  the  blood  of  Christ. 
*  How  MUCH  MORE  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who 


ATONEMENT.  259 

through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot 
to  God,  purge  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve 
the  living  God.'  By  the  argument  of  our  opponents 
there  could  be  no  difference  between  the  blood  of  ani- 
mals, shed  under  the  law,  as  to  value  and  efficacy,  and  the 
blood  of  Christ,  which  is  directly  in  the  teeth  of  the 
declaration  and  argument  of  the  Apostle,  who  also  as- 
serts, that  the  patterns  of  things  in  the  heavens  were 
purified  by  animal  sacrifices  ;  '  but  the  heavenly  things 
themselves  with  better  sacrifices  than  these,'  name- 
ly, the  oblation  of  Christ." — Watson. 

We  think  we  have  now  succeeded  in  showino;  that 
the  doctrine  of  a  vicarious  atonement  is  a  doctrine 
clearly  taught  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  having 
answered  the  most  prominent  objections  urged  against 
it,  we  will  now  bring  this  subject  to  a  close  by  remark- 
ing in  the  language  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lee,  that  "  as 
christians  we  can  never  give  up  the  atonement.  What ! 
renounce  the  atonement,  which  has  already  washed 
away  the.  guilt  of  sin  and  given  us  peace  with  God 
through  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ — renounce  the 
efficacy  of  the  blood  of  the  cross,  the  cleansing  power 
of  which  we  have  already  felt  in  our  souls  by  blessed 
experience — renounce  the  atonement,  trusting  in  which 
holy  Martyrs  shouted  in  tlie  flames  — renounce  the  atone- 
ment which  has  dispelled  the  horrors  of  death  and  shed 
the  light  of  eternity  on  the  night  of  the  grave — re- 
nounce the  atonement,  while  redeemed  spirits  which 
have  already  gained  the  blest  shore,  ascribe  their  salva- 
tion to  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  as  they  surround  the 
throne  with  songs  of  deliverance,  saying,  '  Unto  him 
that  loved  us  and  hath  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his 
own  blood,  be  glory  and  dominion  forever  and  ever : 
thou  art  worthy  for  thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  redeemed 
us  to  God  by  thy  blood.'  No,  heaven  forbid  it !  Holy 
Ghost  inspire  us,  and  the  atonement  shall  be  our  rally- 
ing point  forever." 


260  OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

OBJECTIONS    TO    UNITARIANISM. 

I.  If  Unitarianism  is  true,  the  Bible  must  be  false ; 
for  it  expressly  says  that  the  Word  (which  is  Christ) 
was  God.  Unitarianism  says  he  is  nothing  but  a  crea- 
ture. The  Bible  says  that  Christ  was  from  everlasting  ; 
while  Unitarianism  says  that  he  was  not,  but  had  a  be- 
ginning. The  Bible  says  that  our  Saviour  knew  all 
things  ;  but  Unitarianism  affirms  that  he  was  ignorant 
of  many  things.  The  Bible  says  of  Christ  that  he  is 
the  Almighty,  the  mighty  God ;  Unitarianism  denies 
that  he  possesses  this  attribute,  and  contends  that  he  is 
limited  in  all  his  energies.  In  the  Bible,  also,  our  Saviour 
promises  always  to  be  with  his  followers,  and  to  meet 
with  his  children  wherever  they  shall  be  assembled  in 
his  name,  and,  therefore,  must  be  omnipresent ;  Unita- 
rianism denies  this,  and,  therefore,  contradicts  the  Bible, 
and  renders  it  impossible  for  the  Saviour  to  fulfil  his 
promises.  The  Bible  says  that  Christ  is  over  all,  God 
blessed  forever ;  Unitarianism  says  that  he  is  a  created 
beino;,  and  therefore  cannot  be  God  over  all.  The  Bi- 
ble  says  that  all  things,  both  in  heaven  and  in  earth, 
were  created  by  and  for  Jesus  Christ ;  Unitarianism 
says  that  all  things  were  created  by  and  for  the  Father, 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  Son.  We  therefore  see,  that 
with 'regard  to  the  character  of  our  Saviour,  Unitarian- 
ism is  at  open  war  with  the  Scriptures  ;  and  that  if  true, 
the  Bible  must  be  false. 

But  it  is  not  only  with  regard  to  the  character  of  Christ 
that  Unitarians  stand  opposed  to  the  Bible,  but  in  sev- 
eral other  respects.  The  Bible  views  the  knowledge 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  unlimited  ;  for  it  says  of  him  that 
he  searches  all  things,   yea,  the  deep  things  of  God ; 


OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM.  261 

while  Unitarianism  regards  him  as  nothing  but  an  attri- 
bute or  emanation,  and  therefore  strips  him  of  all  know- 
ledge, and  makes  him  an  unintelligent  agent.  See  the 
answers  given  to  several  questions  by  the  Rev.  James 
Hayes,  on  page  37.  Again,  the  Bible  says,  "  there  are 
three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  three  are  one;"  Unitarian- 
ism says,  no,  "  at  the  most,  there  are  but  two,  the  Fath- 
er and  the  Son,  for  the  Spirit  has  no  personal  existence  ; 
and  so  far  are  these  three  from  being  one,  that  the 
Father  is  an  eternal  self-existent  being ;  while  the  Word, 
or  Son,  is  a  finite  created  being ;  besides,  it  is  impossi- 
ble that  two  should  be  one."  Thus  we  see  that  Unita- 
rianism contradicts  the  Bible,  and,  consequently  if  one  is 
true,  the  other  must  be  false.  P..eader,  which  will  you 
choose  ?  Will  you  adhere  to  the  Scriptures  of  Divine, 
truth  which  are  able  to  make  you  wise  unto  salvation  ? 
or  will  you  suspend  your  eternal  all  upon  a  theory 
which  contradicts  the  Bible,  and  limits  the  Saviour  in 
all  his  attributes  ? 

H.  Unitarianism  makes  the  Bible  contradict  itself, 
and  thereby  destroys  its  claim  to  Divine  inspiration. 
This  will  appear  from  the  fact,  that  in  almost  number- 
less instances,  many  of  which  have  been  mentioned  in 
the  preceding  pages,  and  therefore  need  not  be  repeated 
here,  it  expressly  declares  that  there  is  but  one  God, 
while  in  other  places  it  says  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God, 
and  also  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God ;  and  that,  too, 
under  circumstances  which  forbid  us  to  understand  this 
name  as  applied  to  them  in  any  inferior  or  accommoda- 
ted sense,  as  the  reader  will  see  by  turning  to  the  chap- 
ters on  the  Divinity  of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
These  different  passages  of  Scripture  are  directly  oppo- 
sed to  each  other,  and  can  only  be  reconciled  by  suppo- 
sing that  these  three  persons.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  exist  together  in  the  undivided  Trinity,  and 
together  constitute  the  one  God  who  is  the  Supreme 
object  of  religious  worship.     But  Uuitarians  deny  this. 


262  OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM. 

therefore  they  have  no  consistent  method  of  reconciling 
those  passages  of  Scripture  which  say  there  is  but  one 
God  with  those  which  say  that  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost  are  God ;  therefore,  upon  their  hypothesis, 
tlie  Bible  contradicts  itself,  and  must  be  false. 

These,  however,  are  not  the  only  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture which  contradict  each  othej;,  if  Unitarianism  is  true. 
It  is  said,  "  thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and 
him  only  shalt  thou  serve ;"  and  again,  "  Worship  God." 
But  notwithstanding  these  passages  are  thus  definite  in 
making  God  the  only  object  of  worship,  others,  with 
equal  plainness,  bear  testimony  to  the  fact  that  Jesus 
Christ,  who,  according  to  Unitarianism,  is  nothing  but  a 
creature,  is  an  object  of  worship.  "  When  he  bringeth 
his  first  begotten  into  the  world  he  saith,  and  let  all  the 
angels  of  God  worship  him."  Here  the  reader  will 
readily  see  that  one  passage  makes  God  the  only  object 
of  worship,  but  the  other  makes  Christ  an  object  of 
worship ;  consequently,  if  Christ  is  not  God,  which 
Unitarians  deny,  these  must  contradict  each  other  ;  and 
if  the  Bible  constradicts  itself,  it  cannot  be  true. 

The  Scriptures,  also,  upon  the  one  hand  inform  us 
that  Christ  is  dependant  on  the  Father ;  that  the  Fath- 
€ir  "  does  nothing  of  himself ;"  that- he  does  "  those  works 
which  the  Father  gave  him  to  do ;"  that  "  the  Son 
knoweth  not  the  hour  of  the  last  judgment ;"  that  "  the 
Father  is  greater  than  he ;"  and  that  "  the  Son  shall 
deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  the  Father."  On  the  other 
hand,  they  represent  him  as  acting  according  to  his  own 
will ;  acting  with  a  sovereign  authority  ;  acting  as  ab- 
solutely independent.  "  Be  it  unto  thee  even  as  thou 
wilt — I  will,  be  thou  clean — thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee." 
They  also  assure  us  that  he  is  one  with  the  Father,  and 
equal  with- God ;  that  he  "knoweth  all  things,  and  of 
his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end."  Now  if  Unitarian- 
ism be  true,  which  denies  that  Christ  was  both  God  and 
man,  it  will  be  utterly  impossible  to  reconcile  these  dif- 
ferent passages  of  Sacred  Writ;  for  if  Christ  possesses 


OBSECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM.  263 

but  one  nature,  how  can  he  be  equal  with  his   Father, 
and  yet  inferior  to  him  ? 

''  With  what  consistency  can  our  opponents  maintain 
that  Christ  knows  all  thin_§-s,  and  yet  is  ignorant  of  the 
time  fixed  for  one  of  the  greatest  events  that  ever  did,  or 
ever  will  take  place  in  the  universe  ?  The  distinction 
between  nature  and  office  is  of  no  use  here.  For 
knowledge  is  a  property  of  nature  ;  something,  therefore, 
belonging  to  the  nature  of  Jesus  must  be  in  question. 
Will  they  say,  '  When  Peter  declares  that  our  Lord 
knows  all  things,  that  he  does  not  speak  in  the  general  ?' 
But  what  is  speaking  in  the  general,  if  not  making  use 
of  general  expressions  ?  Besides,  Peter,  from  a  gener- 
al principle,  draws  a  particular  conclusion.  '  Lord, 
thou  knowest  all  things,  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.' 
As  if  he  had  said.  Lord,  I  love  thee,  and  thou  must 
know  that  I  love  thee  ;  for  thou  art  not  ignorant  of  any 
thing.  To  suppose  that  the  Apostle  was  under  a  mis- 
take, when  he  so  expressed  himself,  has  no  shadow  of 
reason.  Because  if  he  was,  he  uttered  a  blasphemy 
by  attributing  omniscience  to  Jesus  Christ,  which  be- 
longs only  to  God  ;  and  because  his  holy  and  humble 
Master  would  not  have  rewarded  blasphemy  by  saying, 
^  Feed  my  sheep.' 

"  How  can  they  reconcile  those  passages  which  in- 
form us  that  Christ  does  nothing  of  himself;  that  he 
prayed  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus  ;  and  that  the  Father 
always  hears  him  ;  with  others  which  represent  him  as 
working  miracles  by  his  own  will  and  his  own  power  ? 
If  he  be  a  mere  creature,  he  depends  upon  God  foi'  his 
existence  every  moment,  and  was  entirely  beholden  to 
the  Great  Sovereign  for  every  exertion  of  power  in  the 
performance  of  his  miraculous  works.  But  if  so,  how 
came  he  to  speak  with  such  an  air  of  Divine  authority 
and  of  Divine  power,  '  I  will,  be  thou  clean  ?'  Had 
Moses  or  Paul,  expressed  himself  after  this  manner,  he 
would  undoubtedly  have  been  guilty  of   blasphemy. 


^64  OBJECTIONS     TO     UNITARIANISM. 

Nor  can  the  distinction  between  office  and  nature  be  of 
the  least  service  on  this  occasion. 

"  Nor  is  their  hypothesis  any  better  calculated  to 
reconcile  what  the  Scripture  asserts  about  the  perpetui- 
ty of  our  Lord's  kingdom,  with  what  it  says  concerning 
his  delivering  of  it  up  to  the  Father.  For  as,  accord- 
ing to  them,  he  does  not  reign  by  nature,  but  only  in 
virtue  of  his  offices ;  it  does  not  appear  how  his  king- 
dom can  be  eternal.  Nay,  it'  necessarily  follows  that  it 
must  come  to  a  period,  if  his  offices  do  so.  The  seem- 
ing contradictions,  therefore,  between  the  different  pas- 
sages, remain  in  all  their  force,  as  to  any  relief  which 
can  be  aftbrded  by  their  hypothesis.  If,  then,  we  be 
able  perfectly  to  reconcile  these  apparently  jarring  texts, 
they  must  allow  that  our  sentiments  have  a  manifest  and 
great  advantage  over  theirs. 

"Though  the  distinction  of  nature  and  office,  which 
is  fundamental  in  their  hypothesis,  be  of  no  service 
here,  yet  ours  of  two  distinct  natures  in  the  person  of 
Christ,  which  is  essential  to  the  system  embraced  by  us, 
is  calculated  to  answer  the  important  end.  Nothing 
more  easy,  nothing  more  natural,  than  to  reconcile  one 
Scripture  with  another  on  the  foundation  of  this  dis- 
tinction. For  example,  Jesus  Christ  is  man,  and  there- 
fore inferior  to  the  Father ;  he  is  God,  and  therefore 
equal  with  the  Father.  He  is  man,  and  therefore  ig- 
norant of  some  things  ;  he  is  God,  and  therefore  must 
be  omniscient.  He  is  man,  and  therefore  must  be  de- 
pendent on  the  First  Cause ;  he  prays  and  is  heard. 
He  is  God  ;  to  act,  therefore,  he  need  only  to  will ;  for 
by  willing  he  commands,  and  by  commanding  he  exe- 
cutes. '  I  will,  be  thou  clean."  He  is  man,  and  there- 
fore may  receive  a  dominion,  which  is  not  natural  to 
him  ;  may  also  receive  it  for  a  certain  time,  after  which 
he  shall  deliver  up  his  delegated  kingdom  and  dominion 
to  the  Father.  He  is  God,  and  therefore  has  an  ever- 
lasting kingdom,  a  necessary  dominion  that  shall  never 
have  an  end." — {Abbadie.)     But  if  Unitarianism  be 


OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM.  265 

true,  which  denies  this  distinction  of  two  natures  in 
Christ,  these  apparent  contradictions  become  real  ones, 
and  thereby  the  truth  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  are  de- 
stroyed. So  forcibly  is  the  above  difficulty  felt  by 
many  Unitarians,  that  they  have  openly  declared  that 
the  Bible  is  contradictory,  and  positively  denied  that 
it  was  given  by  Divine  inspiration.  Of  this  the  reader 
will  be  satisfied  when  he  reads  the  following  extracts 
from  the  writings  of  the  Rev.  John  Grundy  : 

"  In  the  writings  of  the  Evangelists  there  are  incon- 
sistencies and  occasional  contradictions  which,  in  my 
estimation,  render  it  utterly  impossible  that  they  should 
have  written  under  the  influence  of  a  Divine  inspi- 
ration. 

"  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  often  make 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  a  very  incorrect 
manner.  Is  it  not  a  grievous  reflection  upon  the  moral 
character  of  the  Deity  to  represent  him  as  dictating  a 
quotation  from  a  Prophet  to  different  writers,  and  yet 
inspiring  them  to  give  that  quotation  inaccurately  and 
variously  ? 

^'  They  often  speak  with  such  uncertainty  as  to  ren- 
der it  incredible  that  the  sentiment  was  at  the  time  dic- 
tated by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

"  The  reasonings  with  which  the  books  composing 
the  New  Testament  abound,  evidently  show  that  they 
were  not  wrhten  under  the  influence  of  plenary  inspi- 
ration." 

Dr.  Priestley  says,  as  before  quoted,  "  I  think  I  have 
shown  that  the  Apostle  Paul  often  reasons  inconclusive- 
ly, and,  therefore,  that  he  wrote  as  any  other  person 
of  his  turn  of  mind  or  thinking,  and  in  his  situation, 
would  have  written  without  any  particular  inspira- 
tion." 

We  will  now  listen  to  Rev.  Theodore  Parker,  who 
says,  in  his  sermon,  mentioned  on  a  former  page,  "  Who 
shall  assure  us  that  they  [the  writers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament] were  not  sometimes  mistaken  in  historical,  as 
23 


266  OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM. 

well  as  doctrinal  matters,  did  not  sometimes  confound 
the  actual  with  the  imaginary,  and  that  the  fancy  of 
these  pious  writers  never  stood  in  the  place  of  their 
recollection  ? 

"  It  has  been  assumed,  at  the  outset,  it  would  seem, 
with  no  sufficient  reason,  without  the  smallest  pretence 
on  its  writers'  parts,  that  all  of  its  authors  were  infalli- 
bly and  miraculously  inspired,  so  that  they  could  com- 
mit no  error  of  doctrine  or  fact.  Men  have  been  bid 
to  close  their  eyes  at  the  obvious  difference  between 
Luke  and  John  ;  the  serious  disagreement  between  Paul 
and  Peter ;  to  believe  on  the  smallest  evidence,  ac- 
counts which  shock  the  moral  sense  and  revolt  the 
reason. 

''  Hence  the  attempt  which  always  fails,  to  reconcile 
the  philosophy  of  our  times  with  the  poems  in  Genesis, 
written  a  thousand  years  before  Christ ;  hence  the  at- 
tempt to  conceal  the  contradiction  in  the  record  itself. 
Matters  have  come  to  such  a  pass,  that  even  now,  he  is 
deemed  an  infidel,  if  not  by  implication  an  atheist, 
whose  reverence  for  the  Most  High  forbids  him  to  be- 
lieve that  God  commanded  Abraham  to  sacrifice  his  son, 
a  thought  at  which  the  flesh  creeps  with  horror ;  to 
believe  it  solely  on  the  authority  of  an  oriential  stt^ry, 
written  down  nobody  knows  when,  or  by  whom,  or  for 
what  purpose ;  which  may  be  a  poem,  but  cannot  be 
the  record  of  fact,  unless  God  is  the  author  of  confu- 
sion and  a  lie. 

"  On  the  authority  of  the  written  word,  man  was 
taught  to  believe  fiction  for  fact ;  a  dream  for  a  miracu- 
lous revelation  of  God ;  an  oriental  poem  for  a  grave 
history  of  miraculous  events ;  a  collection  of  amatory 
idyls  [love  songs]  for  a  serious  discourse  '  touching  the 
mutual  love  of  Christ  and  the  Church.' 

"  No  doubt  the  time  will  come  when  its  true  charac- 
ter will  be  felt.  Then  it  will  be  seen,  that,  amid  all  the 
contradictions  of  the  Old  Testament ;  its  legends  so 
beautiful  as  fictions,  so  appaling  as  facts  ;  amid  its  pre- 


OBJECTIONS     TO     UNITARIANISM.  267 

dictions  that  have  never  been  fulfilled ;  amid  the  pue- 
rile conceptions  of  God  which  sometimes  occur,  and 
the  cruel  denunciations  that  disfigure  both  Psahn  and 
Prophecy,  there  is  a  reverence  for  man's  nature,  a  sub- 
lime trust  in  God,  and  a  depth  of  piety  rarely  felt  in 
these  cold  northern  hearts  of  ours." 

Such  is  the  language  of  Unitarian  divines.  We  will 
now  present  the  reader  with  an  extract  from  the  pen  of 
Rosseau,  a  noted  French  infidel,  and  then  leave  him  to 
judge  which  has  the  greatest  claim  to  the  name  of 
Christian,  Rosseau,  an  avowed  skeptic,  or  the  gentle- 
men from  whose  writings  the  above  extracts  have  been 
taken. 

"  I  will  confess  to  you  that  the  majesty  of  the  Scrip- 
tures strikes  me  with  admiration,  as  the  purity  of  the 
gospel  has  its  influence  on  my  heart.  Peruse  the  works 
of  our  philosophers,  with  all  their  pomp  of  diction : 
how  mean,  how  contemptible  they  are  compared  with 
the  Scriptures  I  Is  it  possible  that  a  book,  at  once  so 
simple  and  sublime,  should  be  merely  the  work  of  a  man  ? 
Is  it  possible  that  the  sacred  personage  whose  history  it 
contains,  should  be  a  mere  man  ?  Do  we  find  that  he 
assumed  the  tone  of  an  enthusiast  or  the  ambitious  sec- 
tary ?  What  sweetness,  what  purity  in  his  manners  ! 
What  an  affecting  gracefulness  in  his  delivery  !  What 
sublimity  in  his  maxims !  What  presence  of  mind  in 
his  replies  !  How  great  the  command  over  his  pas- 
sions !  Where  is  the  man,  where  the  philosopher,  who 
could  so  live  and  so  die,  without  weakness  and  without 
ostentation  ?  When  Plato  described  his  imaginary  good 
man  with  all  the  shame  of  guilt,  yet  meriting  the  highest 
rewards  of  virtue,  he  described  exactly  the  character  of 
Jesus  Christ :  the  resemblance  was  so  striking  that  all 
the  Christian  Fathers  perceived  it. 

"  What  prepossession,  what  blindness  must  it  be  to 
compare  the  son  of  Sophronicus  (Socrates)  to  the  son 
of  Mary!  What  an  infinite  disproportion  is  therebe- 
tween them !    Socrates  dying  without  pain  or  ignominy, 


268  OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM. 

easily  supported  his  character  to  the  last :  and  if  his 
death,  however  easy,  had  not  crowned  his  life,  it  might 
have  been  doubted  whether  Socrates,  with  all  his  wis- 
dom, was  any  thing  more  than  a  vain  sophist.  He  in- 
vented, it  is  said,  the  theory  of  morals.  Others,  how- 
ever, had  before  put  them  in  practice :  he  had  only  to 
say,  therefore,  what  they  had  done,  and  to  reduce  their 
examples  to  precept.  But  where  could  Jesus  learn 
among  his  competitors  that  pure  and  sublime  morality, 
of  which  he  only  has  given  us  both  precept  and  exam- 
ple ?  The  death  of  Socrates,  peaceably  philosophizing 
with  his  friends,  appears  the  most  agreeable  that  could 
be  wdshed  for ;  that  of  Jesus,  expiring  in  the  midst  of 
agonizing  pains,  abused,  insulted,  and  accused  by  a 
whole  nation,  is  the  most  horrible  that  could  be  feared. 
Socrates,  in  receiving  the  cup  of  poison,  blest  the  w^eep- 
ing  executioner  who  gave  it ;  but  Jesus,  in  the  midst  of 
excrutiating  tortures,  prayed  for  his  merciless  tormen- 
tors. Yes  1  if  the  life  and  death  of  Socrates  were 
those  of  a  sage,  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  were  those 
of  a  God.  Shall  we  suppose  the  evangelic  history  a 
mere  fiction  ?  Indeed,  my  friend,  it  bears  not  the 
marks  of  fiction  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  history  of  Socra- 
tes, which  nobody  presumes  to  doubt,  is  not  so  well  at- 
tested as  that  of  Jesus  Christ.  Such  a  supposition,  in 
fact,  only  shifts  the  difficulty,  without  obviating  it ;  it  is 
more  inconceivable,  that  a  number  of  persons  should 
agree  to  write  such  a  history,  than  that  one  only  should 
furnish  the  subject  of  it.  The  Jewish  authors  were 
incapable  of  the  diction  and  strangers  to  the  morality 
contained  in  the  gospel,  the  marks  of  whose  truth  are  so 
striking  and  inimitable,  that  the  inventor  would  be  a 
more  astonishing  man  than  the  hero." 

The  reader  now  has  before  him  the  lano-uage  of  Uni- 
tarianism  and  the  language  of  infidelity  ;  and  in  view  of 
the  contrast,  we  think  he  will  justify  us  in  saying  that 
the  language  of  Unitarianism  is  not  so  becoming  the 
Christian  religion  as  the  language  of  Rosseau,  an  opea 


OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM.  269 

and  avowed  skeptic ;  and,  with  the  editor  of  the  West- 
ern Christian  Advocate,  ''That  Unitarianism  is  not 
only  diametrically  opposed  in  its  principles  to  Christian- 
ity, but  that  its  very  forces  are  arrayed  against  it.  When 
we  speak  of  Christianhy  we  mean  Christianity  :  we  do 
not  mean  a  few  statements  extracted  by  a  conceited  ra- 
tionalism from  the  word  of  God,  and  then  compounded 
with  metaphysical  imagining  and  philosophical  supposi- 
tions :  we  mean  that  vast  and  comprehensive  system  of 
divine  things  which  was  shadowed  forth  under  the  patri- 
archal and  Mosaic  dispensations  of  grace,  and  which 
burst  forth  in  the  fullness  of  splendor  during  the  ministry 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  We  receive  as  an  eternal 
and  unchangeable  truth,  direct  from  the  throne  of  the 
Supreme  himself,  'All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration 
of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for 
correction,  and  for  instruction  in  righteousness ;  that 
the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished 
unto  all  good  works.'  We  believe  in  the  Bible — the 
whole  Bible — and  nothing  but  the  Bible ;  and  we 
tremble  for  the  future  destiny  of  those  who  trifle  with  its 
solemn  contents  when  we  read  its  closing  words  :  '  If 
any  man  shall  add  unto  these  things,  God  shall  add  unto 
him  the  plagues  that  are  written  in  this  book ;  and  if 
any  man  shall  take  away  from  the  words  of  the  book 
of  this  prophecy,  God  shall  take  away  his  part  out  of 
the  book  of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy  city,  and  from  the 
things  which  are  written  in  this  book.' 

"It  seems  strange,  unprecedentedly  strange,  that 
after  Hobbes,  and  Shaftsbury,  and  Hume,  and  Paine, 
and  Volney,  and  Voltaire,  and  a  host  of  others,  should 
have  expended  the  energies  of  their  nature  in  opposing 
the  Christian  revelation,  and  all  to  no  effect,  its  profess- 
ed friends  should  turn  round  and  blaspheme  its  momen- 
tous truths — should  proclaim,  in  the  assumed  capacity 
of  ministers  of  the  gospel,  that  it  contains  '  puerile  con- 
ceptions of  God,'  and  that '  cruel  denunciations  disfigure 
both  Psalm  and  Prophecy.'  " 
23* 


279  OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM. 

III.  If  Unitarianism  be  true,  then  the  Mahometan 
rehgion  is  an  essential  reformation  of  Christianity. 

"  That  there  is  an  infinite  distance  between  the 
Creator  and  the  creature,  is  a  principle  of  natural  reli- 
gion. God  cannot,  therefore,  without  the  most  hateful 
impiety,  be  treated  as  a  creature ;  nor  can  a  creature, 
without  the  grossest  idolatry,  be  treated  as  a  God.  If, 
then,  Jesus  Christ  be  the  Creator,  he  cannot  be  said, 
without  impiety,  to  be  a  mere  creature :  and,  if  he  be 
a  mere  creature,  he  cannot,  without  idolatry,  be  ac- 
knowledged as  God.  Con'sequently,  if  we  who  con- 
sider him,  as  of  one  essence  with  the  Father,  and  the 
eternal  God,  be  under  a  mistake,  we  cannot  be  cleared 
from  a  charge  of  idolatry,  since  it  is  as  such  that  we 
worship  him. 

"  We  can  not  justify  our  conduct  by  saying,  '  we 
sincerely  believe  him  to  be  God  ;  so  that  though  there 
is  an  error  in  our  judgment,  yet  there  is  no  infidelity  m 
our  hearts,  our  worship  being  directed  to  God  only.' 
For  the  same  reason  might  serve  to  excuse  all  idolaters 
past,  present,  and  future.  The  Heathens,  who  wor- 
shipped their  Jupiter,  really  believed  him  to  be  God, 
and  their  acts  of  worship  were  intentionally  referred  to 
the  Supreme  Being  ;  yet  they  were  not  the  less  idola- 
trous on  that  account. 

"  Nor  ought  we  to  imagine  that  a  creature,  on  ac- 
count of  its  superior  excellence,  may  become  the  object 
of  worship,  which  it  would  not  be  lawful  to  give  to  one 
of  an  inferior  order.  For  they  who  worship  the  stars 
are  as  really  idolaters  as  those  that  worship  wood  and 
stone  ;  and  they  who  worship  angels,  as  those  that  wor- 
ship the  stars :  because  idolatry  does  not  consist  in 
rendering  divine  honors  to  a  creature  that  is  compara- 
tively  low  in  the  scale  of  dependant  existence  ;  but  in 
addressing  them  to  a  mere  creature,''^ — (Ahhadie.) 
But,  says  one,  ''  we  have  no  scruples  in  worshipping 
Christ,  for  God  has  commanded  us  to  worship  him.'* 
Very  true ;  but  this  must  forever  stand  as  an  irrefraga- 


OBJECTIONS    TO     UNlTARlANISM.  271 

ble  evidence  in  favor  of  his  divinity,  or  else  the  Bible  is 
again  made  to  contradict  itself;  for  it  is  expressly  writ- 
ten, "  thou  slialt  have  no  other  Gods  before  me." 
''  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only 
shalt  thou  serve,"  while  at  the  same  time  angels  and 
men  are  commanded  to  worship  and  serve  Jesus  Christ. 
*'  If  any  man  serve  me,  him  will  my  Father  honor." 
Now  if  Jesus  Christ  is  not  very  God,  then  we  are,  in 
one  place,  commanded  to  do  what  in  another  we  are 
prohibited  from  doing  on  the  penalty  of  death ;  for 
what  is  forbidden  on  more  dreadful  pains  than  idolatry 
which  treats  the  creature  as  the  creator. 

"  Again  :  Idolatry  is  a  crime  which  violates  the  law 
of  God  and  destroys  the  spirit  of  piety :  it  is  directly 
opposite  to  the  two  great  ends  of  religion  ;  which  are, 
the  Glory  of  God,  and  the  salvation  of  our  souls.  As 
to  the  former,  it  evidently  robs  Jehovah  of  his  glory, 
and  invests  a  creature  with  it.  As  to  the  latter,  the 
spirit  of  infallibility  has  declared,  that  '  idolaters  shall 
not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.' 

'^  Hence  it  follows,  that  the  Christianity  we  profess 
is  a  corruption  of  the  Christian  religion  ;  and  that  Ma- 
hometanism  is  the  re-establishment  of  it.  For  if 
Christianity,  in  its  primitive  purity,  represent  and  treat 
Jesus  Christ  as  a  mere  creature,  we  corrupt  and  subvert 
it,  when  we  consider  and  worship  him  as  the  true  God* 
If,  then,  the  religion  of  those  who  worship  him  as  the 
Supreme  Being,  be  a  corruption  of  Christianity,  the 
Mahometan  religion,  which  represents  God  as  infinitely 
superior  to  Jesus  Christ,  must  be,  in  this  respect,  the 
re-establishment  of  it." — (Abhadie.)  In  this  light  the 
subject  has  been  viewed  by  Unitarians  themselves,  who 
have  manifested  a  considerable  degree  of  regard  for  the 
character  and  cause  of  Mahomet,  as  will  appear  from 
the  following  address  of  theirs  to  Ameth  Ben  Ameth, 
Ambassador  from  the  Emperor  of  Fez  and  Morocco, 
to  Charles  the  Second,  King  of  Great  Britain : 


272  OBJECTIONS    TO    UNITARIANISM. 

^^  We,  say  they  to  his  Excellency,  as  your  nearest 
FELLOW-CHAMPIONS  for  thosc  trutlis  :  We,  who,  with  our 
Unitarian  brethren,  were  in  all  ages  exercised  to  defend 
with  our  pens  the  faith  of  one  Supreme  God,  (without 
personalities,  or  pluralities,)  as  He  hath  raised  your  Ma- 
homet to  do  the  same  with  the  sword,  as  a  scourge  on 
those  idolizing  Christians  ; — We  do,  for  the  vindica- 
tion of  your  law-male er^ s  glory,  strive  to  prove,  that 
such  faults  and  irregularities,  [as  are  found  in  the  Ko- 
ran] not  cohering  with  the  fashion  of  the  rest  of  the 
Alcoran  building,  nor  with  the  undoubted  sayings  of 
your  prophet,  nor  with  the  gospel  of  Christ  (whereof 
Mahomet  would  have  himself  to  be  but  a  preacher) — 
were  foisted  into  the  scattered  papers  found  after  Ma- 
homet's death,  of  which  in  truth  the  Alcoran  was  made 
up :  it  being  otherwise  impossible  that  a  man  of  that 
JUDGMENT,  that  hath  proved  itself  in  other  things  so 
CONSPICUOUSLY,  should  be  guilty  of  so  many  and  fre- 
quent repugnancies,  as  are  to  be  seen  in  those  writings 
and  laws  that  are  now-a-days  given  out  under  his  name. 
We  do,  then,  endeavor  to  clear  by  whom,  and  in  what 
time,  such  alterations  were  made  in  the  first  setting  out 
of  the  Alcoran.'  See  the  whole  Address  in  Leslie's 
Socinian  Controversy  Disc.  Pref.  p.  3 — 13.  Thus 
careful  were  these  gentlemen  to  purge  the  Koran  of 
every  thing  suppositious  ;  and  thus  tender  of  its  author's 
honor ! 

Another  Unitarian  writer  represents  Mahomet,  as 
having  "  no  other  design  but  to  restore  the  belief  of  the 
unity  of  God ;  which,  says  he,  at  that  time  was  extir- 
pated among  the  eastern  Christians,  by  the  doctrines  of 
the  Trinity  and  Incarnation,  and  informs  us  '  that  Ma- 
homet meant  not  his  religion  should  be  esteemed  a  new 
religion ;  but  only  the  restitution  of  the  true  intent  of 
the  Christian  religion — that  the  Mahometan  learned 
men  call  themselves  the  true  disciples  of  the  Messias, 
or  Christ ;  intimating  thereby,  that  Christians  are  apos- 
tates from  the  most  essential  parts  of  the  doctrine 


OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM.  273 

of  the  Messias — that  Mahometanism  has  prevailed  so 
greatly,  not  by  force  and  the  sword,  but  by  that  one 
truth  in  the  Alcoran,  the  unity  of  God  ;"  that  is,  as  well 
in  Person,  as  in  Essence.  And  then  he  represents  the 
Tartars  as  acting  more  rationally,  in  embracing  what  he 
calls  ''  the  moj'e  plausible  sect  of  Mahomet,  than  they 
would  have  done,  in  receiving  the  Christian  faith  of  the 
Trinity,  Incarnation,  &;c."  In  Leslie,  as  above,  p.  28. 
IV.  Unitarianism  makes  Mahomet  more  true  than 
Jesus  Christ,  "  at  least,  in  those  things  which  regard 
the  fundamentals  of  religion  and  the  glory  of  God. 
This  will  appear,  from  the  manner  in  which  our  Lord 
speaks  of  himself,  and  how,  by  the  direction  of  his  own 
Spirit,  his  apostles  represent  him  in  the  Scripture  testi- 
monies adduced  in  a  preceding  chapter,  when  com- 
pared with  the  following  declarations  of  Mahomet,  in 
which  he  plainly  asserts,  that  they  who  say  '  The  Son 
of  Mary  is  God,  are  infidels  ;'  and  avers,  '  that  Christ, 
the  son  of  Mary,  is  no  more  than  God's  envoy ' — that 
the  '  Christians  are  infidels,  by  making  tJwee  Gods, 
when  there  is  but  one  ;'  and  he  calls  those  '  infidels  who 
set  up  Christ  as  equal  to  God.'  "  These  declarations 
from  the  Koran  are  directly  opposed  to  the  language  of 
the  Bible :  "  In  the  former,  Jesus  is  described  as  bear- 
ing divine  characters  and  possessing  divine  perfections, 
as  performing  divine  works,  and  as  being  the  true  God  ; 
but  in  the  latter,  as  a  mere  creature,  and  infinitely  in- 
ferior to  Jehovah.  The  language  of  the  Bible,  there- 
fore, and  the  language  of  the  Koran,  cannot  be  both 
true,  because  they  are  contradictory.  But  that  of 
the  Koran,  which  expressly  asserts  that  Christ  is  a  mere 
creature,  and  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  the  Su- 
preme Being,  is  not  false,  if  he  be  indeed  a  mere  crea- 
ture. The  inference,  then,  is  plain  and  unavoidable, 
though  shocking  and  horrid  ;  it  is  the  language  of  the 
Bible,  the  language  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  is  void  of 
truth." 


274  OBJECTIONS     TO     UNITARIANISM. 

V.  If  Unitarianism  be  true,  Mahomet  was  wiser  than 
Jesus  Christ ;  for  '^  as  wisdom  consists  in  choosing  the 
best  means  for  obtaining  a  proposed  end,  we  need  only 
examine  what  was  the  end  of  each,  in  estabhshing  his 
religion,  and  then  enquire  what  method  the  one  and  the 
other  took  to  succeed  in  their  designs.  Mahomet's  de- 
sign was,  as  he  declares,  to  make  known  the  true  God, 
as  exalted  far  above  all  creatures — to  make  him  known, 
as  the  only  object  of  religious  worship  ;  who  ought  to 
be  distinguished' from  all  other  beings,  even  from  Christ 
himself:  maintaining,  that  Jesus  is  far  from  partaking 
with  his  Father  in  the  glories  of  the  Deity.  Of  these 
tilings  Mahomet  endeavors  to  persuade  mankind ;  and 
for  this  purpose  he  makes  use  of  plain,  and  strong,  and 
proper  expressions.  He  loudly  and  vehemently  de- 
clares, that  they  who  treat  Jesus  Christ  as  God,  are 
idolaters  ;  which  is  the  direct  way  to  accomplish  his  de- 
sign. It  is  supposed  also,  that  the  great  end  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  to  glorify  God.  To  glorify  God,  is,  according 
to  the  language  of  inspiration,  to  exalt  him  far  above 
all  other  beings.  The  ancient  prophets,  foretelling  that 
God  should  be  glorified,  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  in 
the  latter  times,  express  their  ideas  in  the  following 
words :  '  The  lofty  looks  of  men  shall  be  humbled, 
and  the  haughtiness  of  man  shall  be  bowed  dow^n,  and 
tlie  Lord  alone  shall  be  exalted  in  that  day.'  But 
Christ  debases  God,  at  the  very  time  he  professes  to 
exalt  him ;  for,  by  his  expressions,  he  puts  himself  in 
the  place  of  God.  This  he  does,  when  he  calls  him- 
self God  ;  when  he  claims  divine  perfections  ;  when  he 
attributes  to  himself  the  w^ork  of  creation  ;  and  wdien 
he  applies  to  himself  those  oracles  of  ^he  prophets 
which  display  the  essential  characters  of  the  Supreme 
Being. 

"  If  it  be  said,  '  It  is  sufficient  that  Christ  declares, 
his  Father  is  greater  than  Ae  ;'  I  answer,  it  w^ould  be  a 
haughty  kind  of  modesty  for  a  mere  creature  to  say, 
'  the  Former  of  all  things  is  greater  than  I.'     Neither 


OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM.  275 

Moses  nor  Isaiah,  nor  any  of  the  prophets,  ever  used 
such  languuage.  A  loyal  subject  never  affects  to  say, 
the  King  is  greater  than  I.  That  is  taken  for  granted. 
Nor  will  a  holy  creature  make  use  of  such  language 
concerning  his  Creator ;  because  it  would  be,  in  some 
sense,  to  compare  himself  with  the  infinite  God.  lie- 
sides,  what  would  it  avail  for  Jesus,  once  in  the  course 
of  his  converse  on  earth,  to  say,  '  My  Father  is  greater 
than  I ;'  when  in  the  general  tenor  of  his  conduct  and 
language,  and  in  the  language  he  taught  his  disciples, 
he  speaks  and  acts  as  if  he  were  the  true  God  r" 

VI.  If  Unitarianism  is  true,  Mahomet  was  more  con- 
cerned for  the  good  of  mankind  than  Jesus  Christ. 
This  appears  from  the  fact  that  "  a  pmdent  and  dili- 
gent endeavor  to  preserve  men  from  idolatry  is  one  of 
the  greatest  marks  of  a  sincere  regard  to  their  happi- 
ness ;  because  idolatry  destroys  their  souls,  by  exclud- 
ing them  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  If,  then,  Jesus 
Christ  be  not  a  divine  person,  of  the  same  essence  with 
his  Father,  he  has  not  taken  proper  measures  to  preserve 
men  from  the  dreadful  evil  of  idolatry,  while  Mahomet 
has  done  it  effectually  ;  for  he  has  abolished  the  Chris- 
tian idolatry  in  a  great  part  of  the  world,  and  laid  such 
foundations  of  his  own  religion,  that  a  man  cannot  be 
guilty  of  idolatry,  without  first  ceasing  to  be  his  disci- 
ple. But  as  for  Christ,  he  has  given  occasion  to  it ; 
he  has  laid  a  foundation  for  it.  For  he  does  not  only 
permit  and  direct  his  disciples  to  give  him  the  titles  of 
the  Supreme  Being,  but  also  to  ascribe  to  him  the  per- 
fections and  works  of  Deity,  and  to  apply  to  him  many 
of  the  sublimest  oracles  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
relate  to  the  God  of  Israel. 

"  It  was,  for  instance,  a  very  surprising  thing  that 
Jesus,  when  he  appeared  to  Thomas,  after  his  resurrec- 
tion, should  suffer  him  to  cry  out,  '  My  Lord,  and  my 
God  !'  without  saying  a  word  to  him  about  the  impiety 
and  blasphemy  of  an  exclamation,  which  treats  the 
creature  as  if  he  were  the  Creator.     Thomas,  before, 


276  OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM. 

was  an  unbeliver,  now  he  is  an  idolator.  Till  that  in- 
stant, he  would  not  believe  that  Jesus  was  risen  ;  he 
considered  him  as  a  man  lying  under  the  power  of 
death  ;  but  now,  on  a  sudden,  he  addresses  him  as  God, 
he  bows  and  adores.  Of  the  two  extremes,  the  latter 
is  most  condemnable  ;  for  unbelief  is  not  so  criminal  as 
idolatry.  That  dishonoring  Jesus  Christ ;  this  usurping 
the  throne  of  God.  Better  for  Thomas,  therefore,  to 
have  persisted  in  this  unbelief,  than,  by  renouncing  it, 
to  fall  into  idolatry.  And  yet,  strange  indeed  !  strange 
to  astonishment !  who  can  account  for  it  ?  Jesus  up- 
braids him  only  with  the  fornier ;  not  at  all  with  the 
latter.  Besides,  as  our  Lord  could  not  but  know  what 
an  impression  these  words  of  his  amazed  and  adoring 
Apostle  would  make  on  the  minds  of  men  ;  as  he  knew 
that  the  Jews,  deceived  by  expressions  less  exception- 
able than  these,  had  accused  him  of  blasphemy  ;  and 
as  he  knew  that  these  very  expressions  would  give  oc- 
casion to  Christians  in  succeeding  ages,  to  treat  him  as 
the  true  God  ;  it  is  evident  that  he  ought,  from  a  con- 
cern for  the  good  of  mankind,  to  have  strictly  prohibit- 
ed all  expressions  which  tended  to  make  such  a  danger- 
ous impression.  And  yet  he  not  only  permits  his  disci- 
ples to  speak  after  this  manner ;  but  directs  them  to 
record  the  expressions,  for  the  perusal  of  all  future  gen- 
erations ;  and  that  without  giving  the  least  hint  that  the 
terms  are  used  in  a  new  and  uncommon  sense,  though 
they  appear  so  impious  and  blasphemous. 

VII.  If  Unitarianism  is  true,  Mahomet  was  more 
zealous  for  the  glory  of  God  than  Jesus  Christ.  "  The 
essential  glory  of  God  consists  in  the  eminence  of  his 
perfections,  by  which  he  is  infinitely  exalted  above  all 
other  beings  ;  and  his  manifestative  glory,  or  the  honor 
he  receives  from  his  rational  creatures  in  the  acts  of  re- 
ligion, by  which  he  is  distinguished  from  every  creature. 
Now  Mahomet  has  glorified  God,  by  distinguishing  him 
from  all  other  beings  ;  but  it  does  not  appear  that  he 
has  been  thus  honored  by  Jesus  Christ ;  since  his  own 


OBJECTIONS     TO     UNITARIANISM.  >27T 

expressions  and  conduct,  and  the  language  of  his  Apos- 
■tles,  have  a  natural  tendency  to  make  us  consider  a 
fiaere  creature  as  the  Great  Supreme.  All  expressions 
which  attribute  to  a  creature  the  characters  of  God's 
glory  are  sacrilegious.  Nay,  though  they  might  receive 
ja  sense  which  is  not  impious  ;  yet  they  are  unlawful,  if 
their  ambiguity  be  such  as  renders  them  liable  to  be  mis- 
interpreted, to  the  dishonor  of  God,  by  an  impartial 
searcher  after  truth.  For  if,  in  civil  commerce,  equivo- 
cal language,  which,  without  any  force  upon  the  ex- 
pressions, may  be  so  understood  as  to  injure  a  lawful 
sovereign,  would  be  accounted  criminal ;  and  if,  when 
the  dignity  of  majesty  is  deeply  interested,  we  consider 
the  silence  of  some  and  the  equivocations  of  others, 
who  ought  to  speak  clearly  for  their  master's  honor,  as 
so  many  implicit  acts  of  treason  ;  have  we  not  reason 
to  condemn  equivocations  in  the  case  before  us,  of  im- 
piety and  blasphemy,  though  there  were  nothing  else  to 
induce  us  to  do  it  ?  But  a  man  must  be  wilfully  blind 
who  does  not  see  that  there  is  something  more  than  mere 
ambiguity  in  a  language  which  is  little  short  of  a  per- 
petual application  of  the  characteristics  of  God's  glory 
to  Jesus  Christ. 

"  Hence,  I  conclude,  if  Christ  be  a  mere  creature, 
that  Mahomet  has  spoken  conformably  to  truth  and  pru- 
dence ;  to  a  concern  for  the  good  of  mankind,  and  a 
zeal  for  th  eglory  of  God.  While  Jesus — detested  be  the 
thought ! — while  Jesus  has  spoken  imprudently  and 
falsely  ;  while  he  has  spoken  cruelly,  in  regard  to  us ; 
and  impiously,  in  respect  to  God." 

VIII.  Unitarianism  not  only  consecrates  the  Mahom- 
edan  religion,  but  charges  the  Saviour  with  blasphemy 
against  the  God  of  heaven  ;  for  it  certainly  must  be 
blasphemy  for  any  creature  to  claim  to  be  e^ual  with 
God — to  claim  the  divine  attributes,  or  suffer  himself 
to  be  addressed  by  the  names  peculiar  to  God.  But 
all  this  is  done  by  Jesus  Christ,  as  we  have  proved  in  a 
farmer  chapter.  Therefore,  if  Unitarianism  be  true, 
24 


278  OBJECTIONS     TO     UNITARIANISM. 

which  makes  Christ  nothing  but  a  creature,  he  must  be 
a  blasphemer.  Again,  Jesus  Christ  claimed  and  re- 
ceived religious  worship,  which  in  a  still  clearer  manner 
fixes  upon  him  the  charge  of  blasphemy,  if  he  is  not 
God. 

"  A  man,  for  instance,  who  should  take  the  name  of 
king,  where  a  rightful  sov^ereign  is  acknowledged,  would 
certainly  be  very  guilty.  But  his  crime  would  be  great- 
ly enhanced,  if  he  dared  to  assume  the  titles  appropri- 
ated to  signify  the  grandeur  of  his  sovereign,  and  the 
extent  of  his  dominions.  But  he  would  be  still  more 
guilty,  if  he  caused  himself  to  be  treated  as  a  king ;  if 
he  demanded  the  titles  of  majesty  from  those  who  ad- 
dressed him  ;  and  required,  as  some  kings  do,  to  be 
served  on  the  knee.  In  this  case,  either  the  allegiance 
due  to  the  lawful  sovereign  must  be  renounced  ;  or  this 
pretender  must  be  called  an  usurper,  and  be  punished 
as  guilty  of  high  treason."  But  our  Saviour,  in  addi- 
tion to  assuming  the  titles  of  Deity,  suffers  himself  to 
be  worshipped  by  his  adoring  followers  ;  therefore,  if  he 
is  not  truly  and  properly  God,  he  must  be  guilty  of 
blasphemy. — Ahhadie. 

IX.  Unitarianism  justifies .  the  Jews  in  the  most 
execrable  parricide  that  was  ever  committed,  that  is,  the 
murder  of  Jesus  Christ. 

"  In  the  law  which  God  gave  to  the  Jews,  as  may  be 
seen  in  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  it  is 
said,  *  If  there  arise  among  you  a  prophet,  or  a  dreamer 
of  dreams,  and  giveth  thee  a  sign  or  a  wonder,  and  the 
sign  or  the  wonder  come  to  pass  whereof  he  spake  unto 
thee,  saying,  let  us  go  after  other  Gods,  which  thou 
hast  not  known,  and  let  us  serve  them,  thou  shalt  not 
barken  unto  the  voice  of  that  prophet,  or  that  dreamer 
of  dreams  ;  for  the  Lord  your  God  proveth  you,  to 
know  whether  ye  will  love  the  Lord  your  God  with  all 
your  heart  and  with  all  your  soul.  Ye  shall  walk  after 
the  Lord  your  God,  and  fear  him,  and  keep  his  com- 
mandments, and  obey  his  voice,  and  ye  shall  serve  him 


OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM.  279 

and  cleave  unto  him.  And  that  prophet,  or  that  (Ireaiucr 
of  dreams  shall  be  put  to  death.' 

''  Both  Jews  and  Clirlstians  understood  Christ  to  claim 
the  worship  of  men.  The  former  accused  him  of 
making  himself  equal  with  God,  and  the  latter  acknow- 
ledged him  to  be  so,  and  he  said  nothing  to  oppose,  but 
every  thing  to  confirm  these  impressions.  While  at  one 
time  he  would  command  them  to  love  God  with  all 
their  heart,  at  another  he  would  interro2:ate  them  thus : 
*  Lovest  thou  me.'  He  said  emphatically,  '  Thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve:^ 
and  then  again,  '  If  any  man  sei^ve  me,  him  shall  my 
Father  honor.'  Though  the  law  said,  '  Ye  shall  walk 
after  the  Lord  your  God,  and  fear  him,  and  keep  his 
commandments,  and  obey  his  voice,  and  serve  him,  and 
cleave  unto  him ;'  and  that  whosoever  would  turn  men 
from  so  doing  should  be  put  to  death ;  yet  he  taught 
the  people  to  love  him,  to  hear  his  voice,  to  follow  him, 
to  obey  his  commandments,  and  to  do  every  thing  to 
him  that  this  law  prohibited  from  being  done  to  any 
being  but  God.  If  he  be  not  God,  then,  he  did,  in  an 
eminent  degree,  teach  the  people  to  go  after  another 
God,  and  serve  him,  and  the  Jews  could  not  avoid  put- 
ting him  to  death  in  conformity  to  their  law." — Liickey. 

X.  Unitarianism  destroys  our  hopes  of  heaven  ;  for, 

1.  If  Christ  is  not  God,  he  must  be  a  creature  ;  and 
if  a  creature,  he  was  created  by  God,  and  consequently 
owes  all  his  powers  to  God ;  and  should  he  serve  him 
from  the  time  he  was  created,  down  through  the  ages 
of  eternity,  he  would  do  no  more  than  his  bounden 
duty  ;  therefore  he  could  have  no  merit  to  apply  to  the 
case  of  any  other,  consequently  could  not  make  an 
atonement. 

2.  It  limits  the  Saviour  in  all  his  attributes,  and  di- 
vests him  of  all  his  power  to  save.  For  if  he  is  not 
infinite  in  wisdom  he  cannot  know  all  our  wants,  there- 
fore he  cannot  supply  them.  Neither  can  he  know, 
while  dispensing  our  future  destinies,  what  will  be  best 


280  OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM', 

for  us  ;  and  that  soul  cheering  promise,  that  "  all  things 
shall  work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love  God," 
which  has  born  us  up  under  so  many  trials,  and  caused 
our  hearts  to  rejoice  in  the  midst  of  so  many  afflictions^ 
may  forever  fail.  If  he  is  not  omnipresent  he  cannot 
always  be  with  us  to  encourage,  strengthen,  and  sup- 
port us  ;  and  although  he  is  touched  with  the  feelings 
of  our  infirmities,  and  having  been  tempted  in  all  points 
like  as  we  are,  he  knows  how  to  succour  them  that  are 
tempted,  yet,  peradventure,  while  he  leaves  us  to  visit 
his  followers  in  some  distant  clime,  Satan  may  take  the 
advantage  of  our  weakness,  overcome  and  destroy  us 
forever.  If  Christ  is  not  Almighty,  then  surely  we 
have  a  slender  arm  on  which  to  depend  for  salvation. 
Our  subtle  and  powerful  enemy,  the  Prince  of  the  pow- 
er of  the  air,  who  goeth  about  like  a  roaring  lion  seek- 
ing whom  he  may  devour,  may  overpower  the  Saviour, 
defeat  him  in  all  his  plans,  and  finally  drag  us  down  to 
the  chambers  of  eternal  death,  in  spite  of  all  that 
has  been  done  to  save  us.  Again,  if  Christ  is  not  the 
infinite  and  immutable  God,  then  he  must  be  finite,  and 
subject  to  change  ;  and  if  so,  then  he  may  change  the 
entire  plan  of  salvation,  and  give  us  no  knowledge  of 
Its  terms,  or  he  may  change  in  his  determination  to  save 
us  at  all,  and  finally  leave  us  destitute  of  a  Saviour 
altogether. 

3.  Unitarianism  destroys  our  hopes  of  heaven  by 
denying  the  personality  and  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  reducing  him  to  a  mere  effusion  or  an  agent,  without 
either  personality  or  intelligence,  which  is,  in  fact, 
denying  that  there  is  any  Holy  Ghost.  Consequent- 
ly, if  Unitarianism  be  true,  we  have  no  heavenly 
messenger  "  to  reprove  us  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and 
of  a  judgment  to  come," — no  Holy  Ghost  to  inspire  us 
with  a  burning  zeal  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom — to  comfort 
our  hearts,  enlighten  our  understandings,  change ourna- 
turesj  purify  our  souls,  and  render  us  meet  for  an  inhei;^ 


OBJECTIONS    TO    tTNlTARlANlSM.  S81 

itance  among  those  that  are  sanctified.  That  promise  of 
peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost  can  never  be  verified  ; 
the  baptism  of  the  'Spirit  is  a  mere  deception  ;  and 
finally,  if  Unitarianism  is  true,  the  Bible  is  false  and 
religion  a  dream. 

4.  Unitarianism  destroys  all  our  hopes  of  heaven  by 
denying  the  vicarious  death  and  sufferings  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  It  first  strips  the  Saviour  of 
his  Godhead,  and  consequently  renders  his  suffering  des- 
titute of  merit,  and  then  it  boldly  contradicts  the  word 
of  God  and  affirms  that  Christ  did  not  die  to  redeem  us 
from  the  curse  of  a  broken  law.  It,  therefore,  takes 
away  the  mercy  seat,  annihilates  the  blood  besprinkled 
throne  of  grace  before  which  the  guilty,  trembling,  help- 
less sinner  might  approach  and  plead  the  merits  of  a 
crucified  redeemer,  and  leaves  us  without  a  mediator, 
exposed  to  the  wrath  of  a  sin  avenging  God,  that  God 
who  is  ''  angry  with  the  wicked  every  day,"  and  who 
^^  is  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  sin  with  the  least  de- 
gree of  allowance,  but  with  the  greatest  abhorence  and 
detestation."  It  levels  the  whole  gospel  fabric  with 
the  ground,  and  removes  the  very  corner  stone  of  the 
Christians  hope,  which  is  placed  in  the  meritorious  death 
and  suffering  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  shuts  him  out  from 
the  last  lingering  ray  of  gospel  light  and  dooms  him  for- 
ever to  grope  in  that  eternal  night 

"Which  has  no  morn  beyond  it,  and  no  star" 

exposed  to  the  keen  ire  of  the  Almighty's  wrath,  which 
is  so  fearfully  pronounced  against  all  those  who  violate 
his  righteous  laws.  Unitarianism,  therefore,  by  deny- 
ing faith  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  renders  it  impos- 
sible for  any  to  be  saved,  for  "  there  is  no  other  name 
given  under  heaven,  or  among  men,  whereby  we  can  be 
saved,"  consequently,  if  Unitarianism  is  true,  universal 
damnation  must  inevitably  follow. 

5.  Unitarianism  destroys  our  hopes  of  heaven  by 
denying  the  authenticity  of  the  sacred  scriptures.     It 

24* 


282  OBJECTIONS    TO    UNITARIANISM. 

contradicts  the  Bible,  makes  the  Bible  contradict  Itself, 
and  finally,  as  if  grown  bold  through  trifling  with  sacred 
things,  it  fearlessly  denies  the  inspiration  of  that  holy 
book.  If,  then,  the  Bible  is  contradictory  and  false, 
where  is  our  hope  ?  We  have  no  knowledge  of  God, 
his  attributes,  or  his  will :  we  know  nothing  of  Jesus 
Christ,  his  nature,  or  his  office :  we  know  not  whether 
there  has  been  any  plan  devised  for  our  redemption  and 
salvation,  or  if  there  has,  we  are  ignorant  of  its  terms 
or  the  means  by  which  we  are  to  obtain  its  benefits. 
We  are  left  like  a  mariner  upon  the  trackless  ocean 
without  a  chart  or  compass — no  sun,  nor  even  the  faint 
glimmering  of  a  star  to  guide  us  to  the  desired  haven. 
And,  indeed,  we  know  not  whether  there  is  a  heaven 
to  gain  or  a  hell  to  shun  ;  and  if  there  is,  we  may  foun- 
der in  the  one  without  knowing  how  to  obtain  the  other. 
All  is  a  dark  and  fearful  uncertainty.  We  see  by  daily 
observation  that  we  are  mortal,  and  tending  to  the 
tomb,  and  that  very  soon  we  must  all  die,  but  whether 
we  shall  live  again  or  not  we  cannot  tell.  Our  souls 
may  perish  with  our  bodies,  or  they  may  live  through 
all  eternity  in  bliss  or  woe :  this  too  is  all  uncertain. 
The  promise  of  a  resurrection,  and  of  immortality  and 
eternal  life  beyond  the  grave,  is  taken  from  us  ;  for  if 
Unitarianism  is  true,  the  Bible  must  be  false,  and  these 
consoling  promises  must  forever  fail,  while  we  are 
doomed  to  perpetual  skepticism  and  doubt.  Thus  we 
see  Unitarianism  saps  the  very  foundation  of  Christiani- 
ty, takes  away  all  moral  restraint,  and  opens  the  flood 
gates  of  infidelity,  that  moral  scourge  which  has  spread 
death  and  destruction  over  the  face  of  the  whole  earth. 
It  was  a  disbelief  in  the  word  and  threatenings  of  God 
which  induced  Eve  to  partake  of  the  forbidden  fruit ; 
and  it  is  that  same  unbelieving  infidel  principle  that  has 
ever  been  the  fostering  mother  of  all  iniquity.  Who, 
then,  will  dare  to  risk  their  eternal  all  on  such  a  sys- 
tem as  this  ?  Who  that  has  ever  read  their  Bible  and 
been  struck  with  awe  and  admiration  while  they  have 


OBJECTIONS    TO     UNITARIANISM.  283 

contemplated  the  sublimity  of  its  style,  the  pureness  of 
its  morals,  and  the  exalted  nature  of  its  doctrines  ?  Who 
that  ever  heard  the  thunderings  of  Sinai,  and  with 
trembling  confessed  that  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  could 
no  flesh  be  justified,  and  then  in  that  book  of  books  di- 
.  vine  has  read  the  story  of  the  cross,  the  condescension 
|pf  the  Saviour,  who  was  God  over  all,  and  yet  for  our 
sake  became  incarnate,  became  obedient  unto  death 
even  the  death  of  the  cross,  and  who  gave  himself  a 
ransom  for  us  to  redeem  us  from  the  curse  of  a  viola- 
ted law,  who  arose  for  our  justification,  and  ascended  up 
on  high,  and  there  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God  to 
make  intercession  for  us  ?  Who,  I  say,  in  view  of  all 
this,  can  embrace  a  system  which  denies  the  Bible  by 
denying  all  its  fundamental  doctrines  ?  Can  we  re- 
nounce the  Bible,  that  richest  of  heaven's  blessings,  in 
which  alone  life  and  immortality  are  brought  to  light, 
and  upon  the  truth  of  which  hangs  our  eternal  destinies  ? 
We  who  live  in  the  full  blaze  of  gospel  day,  and  in 
whose  hearts  the  glorious  sun  of  righteousness  has 
shone  with  healing  in  its  beams,  and  by  its  effulgent 
rays  has  scattered  the  gloomy  clouds  of  moral  darkness 
and  despair  and  given  us  peace  with  God  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ — can  we  renounce  the  Bible  ?  No — 
heaven  forbid.  Sooner,  far  sooner,  let  our  right  hand 
forget  its  cunning  and  our  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of 
our  mouth  ;  yea,  let  our  bodies  be  lashed  to  the  burn- 
ing stake  and  perish  in  the  flames,  than  that  we  should 
give  up  that  holy  Book,  or  deny  one  of  its  momentous 
truths. 


ERRATA,    ' 

S»AG£.   LINE. 

5      29  For  Socinins,  read  Socinus, 

G      25  For  Parke,  read  Parker. 
125         1  For  John  Power,  read  John  H.  Power. 
152      18  For  each  of  three  persons,  read  each  of  these  thre0 

persons. 
147      21  In  a  few  copies,  for  defy,  read  deify. 


INDEX. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ON     THE    IMPROPRIETY     OF    MAKING    HUMAN     REASON     THE 

TEST    OF    THE    DOCTRINES    OF    DIVINE    REVELATION,  5 

Shown,  I.  From  the  fact  that  human  reason  has  been  corrup- 
ted by  sin,  9 

II.  From  the  reflection  which  an  appeal  to  reason  instead 

of  revelation  would  cast  upon  Deity,  10 

III.  If  reason  were  to  be  our  guide,  revelation  would  not  be 
necessary, 

IV.  Faith  Avould  not  be  the  gift  of  God,  11 

V.  From  the  opinions  of  ancient  Philosophers,  12 

VI.  From  Scripture  testimony,  13 


CHAPTER  II. 

IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    TRINITY, 


10 


22 


Shown,  L  From  a  knowledge  of  God  being  fundamental  to 

religion,  23 

II.  From  its  being  necessary  to  explain  the  Scriptures,  23 

III.  From  our  views  of  God,  24 

IV.  From  a  denial  of  it  changing  our  love  to  God,  25 

V.  The  doctrine  of  Atonement  depends  upon  the  doctrine  of 

the  Trinity,  27 

VI.  A  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  changes  the 
Christian  experience,  28 

VII.  Changes  our  love  to  Christ,  29 

VIII.  Destroys  all  hope  and  trust  in  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  2i> 

IX.  From  the  manner  in  which  a  denial  of  it  would  affect 
the  credit  of  the  Scriptures,  31 

CHAPTER  III. 

PERSONALITY    AND    DIVINITY    OF    THE    HOLY    GHOST,         34 

Personality. 
Pix)ved,  I.  From  the  mode  of  his  subsistence  in  the  Trinity,    34 


286  INDEX. 

PAGE. 

II.  From  the  Scriptures  being  unintelligible  if  the  Spirit  be 

not  a  person,  34 

III.  From  personification  of  any  attribute  of  Deity  being 
impossible  in  many  passages  where  the  Spirit  is 
spoken  of,  35 

IV.  From  the  masculine  pronouns  applied  to  him,  36 

V.  Objections  ansAvered,  37 

Divinity. 

Proved,  I.  From  the  act  of  creating,  40 

II.  From  being  associated  with  tlie  Father  and  the  Son  in 

the  inspiration  of  the  Prophets,  41 

III.  From  being  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  42 

IV.  From  the  Tabernacle  and  Apostolic  form  of  benediction,  42 

V.  From  the  form  of  baptism,  43 

VI.  From  being  the  Most  High,  44 

VII.  From  being  the  Spirit  of  God,  47 

VIII.  From  being  God,  48 


CHAPTER  IV. 

DIVINITT    OF    CHRIST,  '54 

Proved,  I.  From  his  pre-existence,  55 

II.  From  being  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament,  59 

III.  From  his  titles,  69 

IV.  From,  his  acts,  83 

V.  From  his  eternit}^,  89 

VI.  From  his  immutability,  100 

VII.  From  his  omnipresence,  104 

VIII.  From  his  omniscience,  111 

IX.  From  his  omnipotence,  120 

X.  From  his  being  an  object  of  worship,  134 


CHAPTER  V. 

DOCTRINE    OF    THE    TRINITY,  154 

Proved,  I.  From  the  opinion  of  tlie  Fathers,  155 

II.  From  its  antiquity  and  universal  spread,  163 

III.  From  tlie  word  Elohim,  164 

IV.  From  other  plural  expressions,  166 

V.  From  the  form  of  benediction  used  by  the  Jewish  High 

Priests,  168 

VI.  From  the  form  of  baptism,  171 

VII.  From  the  doxology  used  by  the  Apostles,  174 

VIII.  From  the  benediction  used  by  the  Apostles,  174 

IX.  Objections  answered,  181 


INDEX.  287 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ORIGINAL    STATE    OF    MAN,  lg9 

Proved^  I.  From  man  being-  the  effect  of  a  holy  cause,  ]8!) 

II.  From  his  being  created  in  the  image  of  God,  1!)0 

III.  From  the  seal  of  the  Divine  approbation,  191 

IV.  Prom  his  being-  created  upright,  192 

CHAPTER  VII. 

FALL    OF    MAN,  193 

Proved,  I.  From  the  Mosaic  history,  1!)3 

11.  From  Scriptural  reference  to  tlie  Mosaic  history.  195 

Dtpraviti)  of  all  men  in  consequence  of  the  Fall, 

Proved,  I.  From  the  fall  of  the  first  man,  198 

II.  From  the  fact  that  men  have  been  generally  wicked,  199 

III.  From  the  salvation  of  infants  by  the  death  of  Christ,  211 

IV.  From  the  death  and  suffering  of  children,  211 

V.  From  Scripture  testimony,  212 

VI.  Objections  answered,  222 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ATONEMENT, 


2^ 

Proved,  I.  From  those    Scriptures  which  speak  of   Christ 

suffering  and  dying  for  us,  226 

II.  From  the  death  of  Christ  being  penal,  2'i3 

III.  From  the  death  of  Christ  being  propitiatory,  234 

IV.  From  those  Scriptures  Avhich  speak  of  reconciliation  as 
being  effected  by  the  death  of  Christ,  237 

V.  From  Christ  being  a  redeemer,  244 

VI.  Objections  answered,  248 

CHAPTER  IX. 

OBJECTIONS    TO    UNITARIANISM,  2G0 

I.  It  contradicts  the  Bible,  2(50 

II.  It  makes  the  Bible  contradict  itself,  2(51 

III.  Makes  Mahomedanism  a  reformation  of  Christianity,      270 

IV.  Makes  Mahomet  more  true  than  Jesus  Christ,  273 

V.  Makes  Mahomet  wiser  than  Jesus  Christ,  274 

VI.  Makes  Mahomet  more  concerned  for  the  good  of  man- 
kind than  Jesus  Christ,  275 

VII.  Makes  Mahomet  mor     zealous  for  tlie  glory  of  God 
than  Jesus  Christ,      '  27(» 

VIII.  Makes  Jesus  Christ  a  blasphemer,  277 

IX.  Justifies  the  Jews  in  murdering  tlie  Saviour,  278 

X.  Destroys  the  Christian's  hope  of  lieavcii,  279 


